|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
08-23-2018, 06:45 AM
|
| |
Since the comment is frequently made here that skills are more important than gear, and folks are daily posting questions about technique and asking for critique of their photos, I'd suggest your original comment isn't factual. Further, your succeeding comments come off as insulting and condescending. Perhaps you don't realize that, or perhaps you do. But your generalizations about forum members are false, and your disdain for their attempts at photography comes across as conceited and rude.
Most of us are just regular folks with cameras trying to learn to be better. Most don't have new cameras, nor do most have K-1 full frame bodies. Most don't have $1000 lenses. And yet there are some pretty spectacular pictures posted on this site, along with some others seeking critique, or perhaps just showing an improvement from prior efforts. Understanding other folks are at different points along the skill continuum and learning curve should be a skill any professional photographer has. I suspect your first pictures were not like the ones you post for public view now, were they?
|
|
Forum: Site Suggestions and Help
11-18-2017, 05:39 AM
|
| |
With a certain segment of people looking for alternatives to Adobe products, having more software reviews in the review database might be helpful.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-02-2017, 10:51 PM
|
| |
Could I instead do the one where one train leaves Chicago eastbound at 40mph, while a second leaves NYC westbound at an unknown time and velocity. They cross paths in Akron. Which train has the most passengers? Show your work ;)
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
08-05-2016, 06:41 AM
|
| |
I don't think people should pick on you, Ron, but you really flipped on Pentax. There was a time when you were shooting a lot and a big Pentax proponent, then at some point, you stopped shooting/posting and started generally disparaging Pentax's direction and cameras.
Fan boys aren't right in their universally rosy forecasts, but at the same time, those who constantly preach negativity with regard to Pentax products aren't correct either. Products like the K-1 have done well, there has been steady growth over time, and I don't see much negative at present.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
09-27-2016, 12:10 PM
|
| |
Please don't take this personally because it's just my opinion of McCurry's work, and not of your post , but to me his work (heavily staged, purporting to be photojournalism until his disingenuousness was recently exposed) is to me a form of highly skilled kitsch, with its appeal to stereotypes of 'foreign peoples' and exotic places, that just IS part of the reason the public has bad taste. He does great things with color and composition (I am not doubting his great skill, plus plenty of Photoshop), and in this picture gets the Afghan girl whose appeal isn't just her intense gaze, but the fact that unexpectedly for this Other , her eyes are green, Caucasian (Many Afghans are indeed Caucasian , not Semitic). McCurry's work is to me the worst form of bad taste , because it is so accomplished. End of rant. Just my view.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
09-09-2016, 11:27 AM
|
| |
BigMackCam is no scam,
He spreads wisdom far and wide,
Ask him of equivalence,
He'll show no ambivalence,
So you can use your lenses with no photo to hide.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
09-09-2016, 11:07 AM
|
| |
I've seen a few posts recently talking about "equivalence" - more specifically, selecting lenses for use on cropped sensor cameras in order to emulate so-called "full-frame" results.
It's not that long ago that I was asking similar questions, but thankfully I passed through that rite of passage with the help of other members here :)
Anyway, in an effort to help those still trying to get "full-frame" results from their APS-C and other cropped-sensor cameras, please find below my definitive guide on equivalence... delivered to you in the form of a short poem, penned this very day. I hope you find it useful :)
BigMackCam's Guide to "Full-Frame" Equivalence on Cropped Sensor Cameras
When asked about equivalence
I ask for swift deliverance
from sensors cropped in half and halved again;
Don't calculate and estimate -
You'll end up in a desperate state
when trying to make your photos look the same.
Crop factor versus focal length and f-stop;
Oh Lord, give me strength!
Field of View and Depth of Field be damned!
You'll never get your APS-C
camera's images to be
equivalent to "full-frame"... Understand?!
So this is what I recommend:
Grab a zoom lens and then spend
some time out with your camera and shoot;
From many photos, then decide
your preference - normal, long or wide -
and buy a decent prime (or two) to suit.
Don't try to get the same effect
as "full-frame", because I suspect
you'll end up disappointed, feeling blue.
Forget about the sensor size -
Take photographs! You'll realise
it's not the camera that counts - it's YOU!
Copyright (C) 2016, BigMackCam, All rights reserved. |
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
09-03-2016, 09:45 AM
|
| |
That is what happens with advanced cameras. Main difference between K-1 and K-3 will be things like amount of noise at high ISO, and slightly different, wider, FoV of lenses. This also means the DoF appears to be more shallow and the image magnification appears to be smaller. The biggest difference will be if you shoot raw and do a lot of PP, when you really push raw files every bit makes a difference. But this was a big concern back when people were all demanding the FF camera - once they would get one they would say "oh, that's it?" because it was hyped up as a holy grail before. This is what happens when people think the camera alone makes the picture. It doesn't - but it does allow the photographer to push more limits, once they acquire the skills.
Most people take the kind of photos where even a K-50 is more than good enough. But hey, if you have a top tier camera, try the kinds of photography that pushes the limits, see what you can do :)
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
07-26-2016, 05:00 PM
|
| |
Man, remember when 28mm was considered wide angle? And 24mm was "wow ultra wide!" ?? Now its like "Pffft, only 14mm? What is this for, birding??"
|
|
Forum: General Photography
08-26-2016, 04:40 PM
|
| |
I may be new here but I lurked for several years so I've seen some of the ebb and flow. I have noticed cycles of this issue with every new Pentax product (K-5, K-3, KS-2, etc.). New products can't help but excite some, disappoint others, and provoke harsh words in the intersection of those polar opposite reactions.
That said, I've always felt that the storm soon passes and the sunny skies of all the brilliant and helpful folk here at PF retake the field.
It's good to see you back. I hope you stay.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
07-28-2016, 07:49 AM
|
| |
Great idea for a new product - Polyurethane hair spray/waterproofing. Available in gloss, satin, and matte finish. The matte finish might have advantages for bald guys; no specular highlights/harsh reflections.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
07-11-2016, 10:05 AM
|
| |
They do have a point. The 2.8/15-30 and 2.8/24-70 are in effect Tamron lenses. Compare the Pentax price for these with the Tamron price in other mounts.
|
|
Forum: General Talk
01-14-2016, 12:58 AM
|
| |
Very funny :D Made me think of Monty Python's "Four Yorkshiremen" sketch:
Four well-dressed men sitting together at a vacation resort.
Michael Palin: Ahh.. Very passable, this, very passable.
Graham Chapman: Nothing like a good glass of Chateau de Chassilier wine, ay Gessiah?
Terry Gilliam: You're right there Obediah.
Eric Idle: Who'd a thought thirty years ago we'd all be sittin' here drinking Chateau de Chassilier wine?
MP: Aye. In them days, we'd a' been glad to have the price of a cup o' tea.
GC: A cup ' COLD tea.
EI: Without milk or sugar.
TG: OR tea!
MP: In a filthy, cracked cup.
EI: We never used to have a cup. We used to have to drink out of a rolled up newspaper.
GC: The best WE could manage was to suck on a piece of damp cloth.
TG: But you know, we were happy in those days, though we were poor.
MP: Aye. BECAUSE we were poor. My old Dad used to say to me, "Money doesn't buy you happiness."
EI: 'E was right. I was happier then and I had NOTHIN'. We used to live in this tiiiny old house, with greaaaaat big holes in the roof.
GC: House? You were lucky to have a HOUSE! We used to live in one room, all hundred and twenty-six of us, no furniture. Half the floor was missing; we were all huddled together in one corner for fear of FALLING!
TG: You were lucky to have a ROOM! *We* used to have to live in a corridor!
MP: Ohhhh we used to DREAM of livin' in a corridor! Woulda' been a palace to us. We used to live in an old water tank on a rubbish tip. We got woken up every morning by having a load of rotting fish dumped all over us! House!? Hmph.
EI: Well when I say "house" it was only a hole in the ground covered by a piece of tarpolin, but it was a house to US.
GC: We were evicted from *our* hole in the ground; we had to go and live in a lake!
TG: You were lucky to have a LAKE! There were a hundred and sixty of us living in a small shoebox in the middle of the road.
MP: Cardboard box?
TG: Aye.
MP: You were lucky. We lived for three months in a brown paper bag in a septic tank. We used to have to get up at six o'clock in the morning, clean the bag, eat a crust of stale bread, go to work down mill for fourteen hours a day week in-week out. When we got home, out Dad would thrash us to sleep with his belt!
GC: Luxury. We used to have to get out of the lake at three o'clock in the morning, clean the lake, eat a handful of hot gravel, go to work at the mill every day for tuppence a month, come home, and Dad would beat us around the head and neck with a broken bottle, if we were LUCKY!
TG: Well we had it tough. We used to have to get up out of the shoebox at twelve o'clock at night, and LICK the road clean with our tongues. We had half a handful of freezing cold gravel, worked twenty-four hours a day at the mill for fourpence every six years, and when we got home, our Dad would slice us in two with a bread knife.
EI: Right. I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night, half an hour before I went to bed, (pause for laughter), eat a lump of cold poison, work twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad would kill us, and dance about on our graves singing "Hallelujah."
MP: But you try and tell the young people today that... and they won't believe ya'.
ALL: Nope, nope.. |
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
08-13-2015, 08:31 AM
|
| |
Looking forward to Norm's contributions to this thread...
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-15-2015, 09:03 AM
|
| |
Two things have to happen for a lens to get a lot of likes for it's images... a lot of people have to own it, and those who own it have to be able to take good pictures with them. And a lot of people have to view the thread.
The all time king of the lens clubs has to be the 300 plus lens club.... with closing in on 9000 likes. But it's not a single lens. There are probably posts from 20 different lenses there.
Of the single lens clubs...
The king of single lens clubs The 15mm Limited controls my mind - club with 3300 likes.
The Sigma 10-20 has done very well.... with over 1000 likes.
The kit lens club has 664 putting it in second place... I assume these are for the most part 18-55 and 50-200 images.
Over in the lens discussion section the DA 18-135 has a great following with 429 likes. If any mods are reading this, this thread should probably be moved to the Lens Clubs section.
Another shear volume club is the "DA 35 Plastic Fantastic club with 257 likes. The term, value for money comes to mind.
The Sigma 8-16 has 201 likes, pretty good for a lens with such limited distribution.
The current hard charger is the D FA 150-450 which has over 100 likes in just a few weeks.
One of the more unusual clubs is the The Pentax HD PENTAX-DA AF Rear Converter 1.4X AW (and any lens) Club with already 115 likes... more than many of the standalone lenses listed. My guess is this converter has been a pretty good seller.
------------
Among the grouped clubs the current big guns are the FA ltd club with 1815 likes, which is pretty impressive given the cost of these lenses, and the number of people who are probably used them. Mind you they've also been around a long time. It would be an interesting poll to find out what percentage of the forum actually own one of these gems.
The DA lens club has over 1000 likes but is that impressive? All of us own DA lenses, most of what you can buy are DA Lenses.
Similarly with the Takamur Club, over 1100 likes but so many Pentax users bought into Pentax so they can continue to use the Taks they love, it's almost surprising it's not higher.
The DA* club has 917 likes... again a lot of likes for a club with a high entry price.
One of the more surprising clubs for me was the Fisheye Fever Club almost 700 likes. Combine that with the Sigma 8-16 and Sigma 10-20 and you can see ultra wide angle is really popular among the forum members.
The 135mm club has 191 likes and Pentax doesn't even currently have one in their lens line up, are you listening Pentax?
Another really unusual club to check out would be the Soviet lens Club... over 600 likes. Really? How common can those lenses be?
I notice the Sigma 30 1.4 has 16 posts and not one like... Don't know if that means anything... but not all the lens clubs inspire people to buy the lenses obviously. Many have very few likes. Although if you read the titles like "Lieca Lens Club, it's probably because very few people own them, or care about them at all.
Folks can argue all they want about which lens is better and why, but you look at the numbers and you see what pictures people actually like. And given the numbers for the "kit lens club" it's pretty hard to argue that using the kit lens ruins many pictures. I don't know if there are other clubs buried in odd places like the 18-135 club, that should be included here. But I'm sure a lot of people have learned a lot by seeing what other people have done with lenses they own.
To my mind the lens clubs are one of the more inspiring aspects of the forum. They give you the reasons to buy a lens, and then show you innovative things people have done with the lens, for some shooting inspiration after you've bought it. A good exercise would be to find an image taken in a club for a lens you own, one you really like, and do your best to emulate it.
In my opinion, lens clubs are one of the most under-rated aspects of the forum.
More pictures less talk.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-02-2015, 05:57 PM
|
| |
Because you can't move is the most likely scenario. You can zoom with your feet, until you can't.
Well then, what if you need 140 or 100? You need to spend more time getting to the gist of what's been said and not spend so much time trying to negate it. You end up missing the point altogether.
Actually, I'm rarely working on level ground, and I'm also shooting a particular background for either colour or detail. Moving means changing my camera angle. I didn't find the perfect angle and line up the background just to move and accept an inferior position. All you have to know here is that "zoom with your feet" is nonsense. It is not always possible, or even desirable. Another dictum is "if you don't like your pictures, get closer." You aren't getting closer if your zooming backwards with your feet to get what you want in the frame. The intellectual contortions you're going through to try and make "zoom with your feet" a reality , make no sense. Why are you doing this?
On a shot like this
I moved up and down the hill until I go the pine needles positioned where I wanted it against the horizon, then I zoomed until I got the framing I wanted, and I was working on tripod, so I could frame really tight, and not waste pixels cropping. Moving backwards or forward changed my vertical position, and therefore my lens angle with relation to the horizon. It's just true, "zooming with your feet" is one of those smug cliches that doesn't fit many real world situations.
For most images, I want the full 24 MP, that's why I bought a 24 MP camera, as I said before. For maximum picture quality you shoot 24 MP with a 24 MP camera, I'd avoid shooting for 90mm with a 100mm lens by backing up. That's just maximizing your resources. See, this is exactly what I don't get. Why would you claim you are shooting primes for better image quality, and then recommend shooting that prime without filling the frame? That makes no sense at all. I'm saying straight up, flat out, without a shadow of a doubt, I'll get a better image shooting with my 18-135 at 135mm, than you will shooting with a 100 mm lens and cropping, and probably with the 100mm lens backed out to however many feet it would take to frame the image the way I want it. I don't care how good your 100mm lens is. It's going to be true.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
05-28-2015, 03:00 AM
|
| |
Dont let Heie get a hold of them. ;)
|
|
Forum: Do-It-Yourself
05-26-2015, 08:44 PM
|
| |
I have owned 3 of these v.1 AF-540FGZ flashes and figured eventually the flimsy battery door was bound to break. The design includes three tiny plastic nubs molded onto the flash housing side, that eventually wear down or snap off. One of my nubs has worn off, causing the door not to stay closed and i have been using rubber wirst bands, tape, even a bulky C-clamp to keep the door closed, but finally found a working solution that does not block the viewing screen nor any of the buttons.
I used 2-part epoxy to affix three lego pieces strategically on the door and surrounding the door. then simply close the door and lock a single large lego piece or individual crossbar pieces to lock it shut. It is working just fine now and i can even attach little Lego men if i want for some whimsy.
Check it out and good luck if you are having trouble getting replacement parts:
 |
|
Forum: General Photography
02-04-2015, 01:20 PM
|
| |
You beat me to it! Lady Macbeth was saying it as she phoned her dermatologist for a consultation.
---------- Post added 02-04-15 at 02:21 PM ----------
Wonderful adaptation!
|
|
Forum: General Photography
02-04-2015, 01:20 PM
|
| |
Is this a 35mm which I see before me,
The grip toward my hand? Come, let me clutchthee.
I have thee not, and yet I see thee still.
Art thou not, fatal vision, sensible
To feeling as to sight? or art thou but
A 35mm of the mind, a false creation,
Proceeding from the heat-oppressed brain?
But I reckon we can now be sure that something wicked this way comes. no?
When shall we three meet again In thunder, lightning, or with full frame?
|
|
Forum: Welcomes and Introductions
01-22-2015, 11:43 PM
|
| |
Ah, you guys are all so sweet and that's why I love the Pentax family. Thanks for all the links and I am really glad to know that I'm not alone anymore.
Please forgive me Timd... "I hope you are a Pentaxian not a Pantaxian!"
I only saw it after you mentioned it and found that I can not fix that, but yes... I'm a proud Pentaxian :-D
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
01-13-2015, 02:32 PM
|
| |
The 1/FL rule for the lowest handheld shutter speed is for 35mm full-frame, not APS-C. On APS-C which has 1.5x the magnification, you need to increase the shutter speed by 50% to get the same effect because of the additional magnification, so instead of 1/60 with a 60mm lens you really need 1/90 to maintain a sharp image without camera shake.
Of course, this is with SR off... and I have been able to get sharp photos with relatively slow shutter speeds with SR enabled. I agree that it's probably not the sharpest possible with SR on, but it is better in most situations than SR off in my experience. If the shutter speed starts to get too low and I can't hold the camera still enough... that's what the tripod is for.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
12-16-2014, 04:33 PM
|
| |
For many photographers, the standard zoom lens is the most frequently used and most important lens in their kit. For years, Pentax has lagged in the standard zoom department, particularly when it comes to making standard zoom lenses with weather sealing. Before the release of the DA 20-40, the only standard zoom WR options for the Pentax K-Mount was a bottom of the line kit lens, a superzoom, and an f2.8 zoom. As a landscape photographer, I want to shoot with something better than a cheap kit lens or a superzoom, but I also would prefer to avoid the heavy f2.8 zoom (you don't need f2.8 for landscapes!). The DA 20-40 and this new DA 16-85 give landscape photographers two great options in a standard zoom: one which provides high quality in a compact package, the other which, I suspect, will provide very good quality over a longer range.
Pentax called the K-3 "the ultimate field camera." But a field camera requires field lenses, and that's where the DA 16-85, along with the DA 20-40, comes in. If you're going to make the ultimate field camera, you're going to need field lenses to go with it. The fact that these lenses have garnered so much hostility merely testifies to the fact that some people have decided, rather oddly, that if lens doesn't fit their own particular needs, Pentax should never make it. They never stop to think that other photographers may have different needs.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
11-26-2014, 07:11 PM
|
| |
I chose Pentax because my first SLR was the K1000 that I purchased with paper route money. I was semi attached to the brand. When I went digital, I went with the K10 because at the time, Pentax's feature set for the price was a big bang for your buck, in fact it still is. So why can't I have 3rd party lenses with a Pentax system? I didn't know I wasn't invited to the Reindeer Games if I didn't sip from the "give me a small prime or give me death" kool-aide. Or maybe it's the "WR or nothing" fountain. I stated I have tried many of Pentax's lenses and found some to be great, but many to be wanting. I have also tried and sold Sigma lenses because their performance didn't meet my expectation. This thread is a summary of my many trials and errors, In hopes someone gleans a pearl or 2 of wisdom that is beneficial to them.
This isn't actually my "exact" kit but I was trying to put together a modern day kit geared toward the current lens seeker. Yes I have the Sigma 50-150 and the Tamron, but I also have a Sigma 100-300 f4. I have a DA40 that I use a pseudo macro, a Sigma 70mm Macro and an FA100 macro, but those are all specialized lenses that get used 2-3x a year. I also have an F50 1.7 that I sometimes use for movies. It was not my intent to overload a reader in choices, it was my intent to cover 90% of all the "What's the best lens I can buy for x" or "Help me pick between this lens and that lens" threads that have permeated this forum lately.
If you don't like my choices of lenses, maybe we should be asking why someone can put together a "No compromise" kit and feel it outperforms most lens throughout the Pentax lineup? I'm not the first one to decry the lack of balance in the Pentax lineup, and I'm not the first to be unhappy with it's SDM performance.
If one is a zoom shooter, there's not a lot of Pentax offerings that give you the IQ within a reasonable price range. $350 for the Tamron 17-50 or $800 for Pentax 16-50? That's a no brainer. I purchased my 50-135 for close to $1000, but later sold it and purchased the Sigma 50-150 for $600. Another no brainer. I love my Sigma 20-40 that I picked up for $400ish. Yes it's big with an 82mm filter, but it goes pixel to pixel with the $900 Pentax lens.
I'm 6-1 250 and in pretty decent shape, so I don't care if I'm hiking with a 25lb backpack. What I do care about is if the damn SDM can't focus fast enough (or at all) or I have to fumble with a pocket full of primes on a precarious perch or difficult conditions. I sure as heck don't want to have to make 4,5 6 lens changes in a wet and/or windy or other inhospitable environment. And I don't have that many pockets to begin with. An all prime kit may be the ultimate in IQ, but it seriously lacks flexibility and lends itself to extra PP such as cropping after the fact. Unless we are comparing 48x60 prints, You really won't be able to tell the difference between a good zoom and good prime. What an all prime kit does do, is seriously limit your in camera compositional abilities because I promise you, "zooming with my feet" is NOT an option 90% of the time.
What I also care about is that I spent half on my kit opposed to what I would have had to spend, "staying loyal" and going all Pentax. I see no sane reason for doing that.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
05-14-2014, 02:08 PM
|
| |
:eek:That is the SDM bug.;)
|
