Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
9 Hours Ago
|
|
I think the thing that is appealing about Fuji is the high number of APS-C specific lenses. So, if you want a 50-ish mm f1.2 lens, you can get one from Nikon for about 1800 dollars and it will weigh 1090 grams, because of course, it covers full frame. On the other hand, Fuji's 56mm f1.2 is 900 dollars (still pretty expensive), but only weighs 445 grams.
I'm not saying that Nikon isn't appealing, but I feel like it is mainly appealing for folks who know they want to go with full frame in the long run. If you want fast, small lenses for APS-C, Fuji is a better option.
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
13 Hours Ago
|
|
I think ZFC and ZF will struggle as Nikon doesn't have the APS-C lens line up to compete with Fuji. It would be surprising if they ever did considering Fuji has invested all of their efforts into APS-C and medium format and has indicated they have no interest in full frame. Nikon on the other hand typically sees APS-C as a stepping stone to get folks into full frame cameras.
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
17 Hours Ago
|
|
Using the camera's jpeg engine is simply using the camera as your post processor. This is probably fine to do for a lot of scenarios -- particularly if you have chosen good settings. If you overcook the settings -- turn the sharpening up too much and the vibrance, there is little you can do in post to fix it. On the other hand, as someone earlier mentioned in this thread, you can work on neutral jpegs and improve shadow areas and sharpening in post.
I guess to me, the benefit of jpegs is speed and for snapshots of my kids, they are more than adequate. On the other hand, I'm one of those folks who will work on a landscape image for a while cloning out power lines or dodging/burning a particular area till I get it the way I want and I haven't found the camera's jpeg engine to be up to that sort of thing.
|
Forum: General Photography
17 Hours Ago
|
|
Just to mention the sales tax difference. In Virginia, we pay a little over 5 percent sales tax. That would add about 95 dollars to the cost of the camera if I would buy it without messing with B and H's weird payboo thingy.
I don't know what the VAT percent in Europe is, but I'm guessing it is in the 16 percent range? Regardless, that is the major difference. For whatever reason, Pentax typically prices their gear the same in dollars as in Euros, even though that gives US residents a price break compared to their European counterparts. So, even discounting the tax, the US price is 1700 dollars and the European price is 1900 dollars.
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
1 Day Ago
|
|
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I have experimented a lot with jpeg settings and I have never been able to get results as good with landscape images as what I can get with a mixture Lightroom and Nik Effects. I acknowledge that I am probably to blame, but it is the reason why I continue to shoot RAW even though others who are more capable shoot jpeg only.
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
1 Day Ago
|
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 III
1 Day Ago
|
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
1 Day Ago
|
|
I'm not sure why there is so much negativity on the 18-55. There are better lenses out there with faster apertures and more zoom range, but it is a fine place to start and is available with sealing.
This is a shot with it on a K-S1 |
Forum: General Photography
2 Days Ago
|
|
I think it is a challenge to know how to make money in the print media market. The biggest companies, like the Wall Street Journal and New York Times are able to have a huge digital online presence behind a paywall and generate a lot of income that way. ESPN has a lot of articles that are behind paywalls now too and it seems as though they were supported for a long time by the cable bundle and that cash is going away.
Good paying jobs in the media -- either as photographers or as journalists -- seem to be numbered going forward. There will still be writers, but the question is who will pay for their services and will they get things like healthcare benefits with those jobs or will they all be free lance jobs.
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
2 Days Ago
|
|
I find with jpegs that if you have significant shadowing in an image you simply have more noise and minimal detail once you bump shadows more than a couple of stops in an image. This is plenty for most situations, but for high dynamic range images, it really isn't adequate.
Typically I am shooting pixel shift images in order to get the cleanest possible "digital negative" to begin working on. Once again, shooting pixel shift doesn't add much to a lot of images, but it can add detail, color depth, and such to an image.
I guess the question is always good enough versus some ideal version of a photo you have in your mind. It is why I buy expensive lenses, use tripods, and wake up hours before the rest of my family does on vacation... :)
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
2 Days Ago
|
|
It sounds to me like you will probably be fine shooting jpeg. The big thing when shooting jpeg is that you make sure you camera's settings fit what you want. You can postprocess jpegs, but if you have a jpeg where the images is overly saturated and has sharpening artifacts, it is hard to fix those sorts of things in post. Better to have an under processed image that you can then work on, but I would think if you choose normal settings you'll be fine.
My main reason for using RAW has to do with being able to underexpose, so as to keep the highlights and still bring up the shadows in a landscape image and have it look good. So, this is an image I shot a while back and the original is pretty dark (deliberately so): Unprocessed Road by Vincent1825, on Flickr
The post processed image brings a lot more detail into foreground, but keeps the color in the sky and the sliver of moon. Before Dawn by Vincent1825, on Flickr
My experience is that you would have a hard time shooting this sort of image in camera with jpegs. Either the foreground looks off or the sky is blown out. Back before sensors got as good as they are now I used a fair amount of HDR to achieve these sorts of results.
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
3 Days Ago
|
|
Are we going to see any significant releases before the end of 2024?
(Hoping so...)
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
3 Days Ago
|
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
4 Days Ago
|
|
I think there are a couple of things to note here.
-- People use wide aperture lenses for two reasons -- to have shallower depth of field and to increase shutter speed in situations where you don't have room to bump up your iso any more. If you have really shallow depth of field, chances are good having sharp borders is not going to be crucial to the success of your image.
-- Contrast is more important than sharpness. To me, at least when it comes to landscape images, what makes or breaks images is the level of contrast that a lens brings to the table. You can add a certain amount of this in post, but it is really easy to have images look artifacty if you pull the contrast slider too far. Sharpness is important to a point. I feel like Pentax's coatings do a good job with contrast and micro-contrast, even in flare situations.
-- Landscape images are shot stopped down. This probably makes sense, but if you are shooting at f8 or f11, you are less likely to see a difference in your slow-ish zoom versus someone else's wide aperture prime.
-- Many images simply don't have a lot of detail. What makes the images are other qualities. If you study the brush strokes of impressionist painters, you are probably missing the point and it is better to focus on the overall feeling that the painting brings you.
A couple of DA 40 limited shots.
Fishing (I like this one even though it doesn't have a lot detail and was shot on a K-01 camera) Fishing by Vincent1825, on Flickr
Barn at Dawn (also shot with K-01) Barn at Dawn by Vincent1825, on Flickr
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
5 Days Ago
|
|
I don't think there is an easy answer. I own both the FA 77 limited and (two copies) of the FA *85. I am fine cleaning up the CA and fringing that the FA 77 exhibits for snapshots of my family, but when my wife is shooting a wedding, she feels like the image quality with the FA 77 adds significant time to her post processing and efficiency is really important there.
I think about the DA *16-50 PLM versus the DA 15 limited. The 15 limited is smaller with a slower max aperture. For most situations I prefer the 16-50, but when you are shooting the right landscapes, the DA 15 punches way above its weight.
I think photography is about finding the right light, but also it is about avoiding the weaknesses of a lens and working with its strengths.
DA *16-50mm PLM shot Rays of Light by Vincent1825, on Flickr
DA 15 limited shot Dawn on the Potomac by Vincent1825, on Flickr
|
Forum: General Talk
5 Days Ago
|
|
That's sad to hear. I was afraid his bipolar had pushed him to do something regrettable.
|
Forum: General Talk
6 Days Ago
|
|
Seems silly to me. The reason the picture is interesting is the people in it -- not its accuracy. Probably the picture is a composite using a couple of different images and the software flaked a bit in specific spots. I have five children and the chances of getting all of them looking at the camera, smiling and having their eyes open at the same time is about the same chance as knowing if Schoedinger's Cat is living or dead.
The fact that a press photo released by the royal family has had some photoshopping seems pretty trivial. Next thing you know, they will complain that people are wearing make up in the images to hide blemishes...
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
03-10-2024, 03:17 AM
|
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
03-10-2024, 03:16 AM
|
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
03-10-2024, 02:51 AM
|
|
I own three K-1 IIs and a K-3 III and I disagree with your assessment. For certain lenses (like the DA 15 limited and DA *16-50 PLM) there is absolutely no benefit to mounting them on a K-1 camera. They are nice lenses that are not truly replicated in the full frame system (the Pentax/Tamron 24-70 isn't nearly as nice as the 16-50 PLM). Beyond which, the K-3 III adds functionality (speed of focus and operation) that the K-1 doesn't dream of matching.
I love my K-1 cameras, but the K-3 III is anything but an expensive TC.
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
03-09-2024, 10:42 AM
|
|
I've always thought it was more about light than glass. It does have its weaknesses, but I wanted something that was flexible and was a one lens option for trips where I didn't want to mess with a big backpack and lots of lenses and this seemed to fit the bill.
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
03-09-2024, 03:50 AM
|
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 III
03-09-2024, 03:50 AM
|
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 III
03-09-2024, 03:49 AM
|
|
|