Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
04-22-2010, 08:53 AM
|
|
Works for me.
Assuming you are using Windows 7:
- Make sure that file extensions are not hidden (Windows does this by default). Otherwise, your text file will wind up being named MODSET.492.txt. To do this, go to Control Panel -> Folder Options -> View tab -> uncheck Hide Extensions for known file types
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
04-22-2010, 08:07 AM
|
|
The K-x is so small that if it had a battery grip, I could hold it by the grip in portrait orientation with my right hand, and with the left keep 2 fingers on the lens and press the shutter button with my thumb. As long as there's no flash attached.
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
04-22-2010, 08:02 AM
|
|
Pentax needs marketing. Great products are great, but they seldom sell themselves.
Pentax also needs a line of very good P&S. I bet there is a ton of Canon Rebel shooters out there who chose the Rebel because they already had one of the excellent Powershot digicams.
Pentax needs more glass. Even for folks who never plan to move beyond kit lenses, just the idea that there are a gazillion lenses available for "their brand" has an impact.
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
04-22-2010, 07:13 AM
|
|
Hopefully, I'll be able to provide enough information to satisfy you. :)
Briefly, though: there is a specific set of parameters where the TC is beneficial. Outside of these parameters, there is no improvement. And, IMO, field usage is not to be discounted.
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
04-22-2010, 07:08 AM
|
|
I can tell you, after a few hudnred shots with the 1.5x and 2x TC's, that the IQ with the TC can be noticeably better with the TC. Here's an example of a scenario where the TC helps: you see a bird sitting in a tree. You can see the bird well enough to ID it, but you can only fill around 1/4 of the frame with it. You will see more detail using the TC than w/o it.
We're talking decent TC's here, not the $20 ones on fleabay.
Point #2 is true. Unless you are using spot metering, of course.
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
04-22-2010, 06:04 AM
|
|
:lol: Yeah, point taken.
It does look like there are a few folks interested, though, so I'm going to do a little bit of an expansive comparison. :cool:
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
04-22-2010, 06:01 AM
|
|
I've had 2 DA L 18-55 lenses that demonstrated different levels of sharpness, particularly at the long end.
I don't think at any point I said that the kit lens on "at par" with the 16-45.
My position on this, succinctly: if you have a good copy of the kit lens (DA L, AL II, WR) the value proposition of the 16-45 isn't that great. You get a fairly small boost in IQ, wider at the wide end, and similar speed. IMO, $400 (new) is a lot to spend for that kind of "upgrade". Here's my caveat: if you often shoot very wide, the superior edge-to-edge sharpness of the 16-45 may be worth it.
|
Forum: Post Your Photos!
04-22-2010, 05:49 AM
|
|
A scene with potential, but it needs some PP to bring out more contrast and adjust exposure, and either clone out the discard ladder at the bottom of the frame or crop it out.
Did you shoot this exact scene with your Chinon? I'd be interested in seeing a comparison! :)
|
Forum: Post Your Photos!
04-22-2010, 05:46 AM
|
|
I'm not good at heights. :fedup:
1st shot's a cracker, that's for sure!
|
Forum: Post Your Photos!
04-22-2010, 05:44 AM
|
|
In this case, you cropped the shot, then posted it in a larger format than the original, so of course it's going to be less sharp.
If you re-open a JPG file, edit and then save again, you can lose sharpness, detail, etc.
Photos I've edited to my satisfaction get saved as TIFF as well as JPG. That way, if I decide to edit the photo again, I can use the TIFF file which has not suffered the destruction caused by the JPG's compression.
|
Forum: Post Your Photos!
04-22-2010, 05:37 AM
|
|
Very polished looking photo. I really like your B&W conversion.
|
Forum: Post Your Photos!
04-22-2010, 05:35 AM
|
|
Thanks. The bird is a boat tailed grackle - we've had an influx of them over the last few years.
One interesting aspect of using a TC is the shallow DOF it provides. It's both a blessing and a curse. ;)
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
04-21-2010, 09:09 PM
|
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
04-21-2010, 09:08 PM
|
|
I know. That's why I pointed out that thread - so the OP could view multiple opinions.
There's also plenty of folks who agree with me that the 16-45 is a only small step-up from the 18-55 mk ii, unless you need the extra 2mm on the wide end. To quote my 1st post, "if you have a "good" copy of the kit lens, $300 to too much for the extra 2mm and no real increase in speed, and only a slight bump in IQ."
Since when is "the long end, where it counts" applicable to the 16-45? Promoters of the 16-45 always emphasize the wider end. And as far as the 45mm point being a stop faster with the 16-45 than 18-55 mk ii, that is very true, but dial both lenses back just 2 mm and the advantage shrinks to a mere ~ 1/3 stop, f/4 to f/4.5.
Don't get me wrong - I don't think that the 16-45 is a bad lens at all. My issue is that @ $400 it does not represent a good value when compared with the kit lens. I just looked at Adorama, and they have the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 XR for $459. That's the best value of all the lenses being bandied about in this thread!
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
04-21-2010, 08:56 PM
|
|
I don't have one of 'em.
Besides, I love hanging that off of the 55-300. :D
|
Forum: Post Your Photos!
04-21-2010, 08:27 PM
|
|
Cool photo - looks like Kung-fu Chipmunk! :lol:
Good on you for coming thru in the clutch for that last shot. :)
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
04-21-2010, 08:17 PM
|
|
Hmm, I didn't think about that. Unfortunately, I can't experiment with the Raynox attached to my Vivi 100mm macro because the Vivi's diameter is too small (49mm).
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
04-21-2010, 07:19 PM
|
|
I use the Raynox DCR-150 on my 55-300 (and before that, Tamron 70-300) to shoot live spiders, flies, etc. all the time.
IIRC, with the Raynox DCR-150/300mm lens combo, the distance between lens and subject is ~ 8".
Here's a pic of a spider, shot thru the kitchen window. No crop - this is the full frame, resized. He was walking.
135mm w/Raynox DCR-150, ISO 800 f/27
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
04-21-2010, 07:12 PM
|
|
Cody, that 3rd pic is great! :D
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
04-21-2010, 07:11 PM
|
|
There's another recent thread about "upgrading" to the 16-45. IMO, if you have a "good" copy of the kit lens, $300 to too much for the extra 2mm and no real increase in speed, and only a slight bump in IQ.
I agree with Cody about the Sigma 17-70. In fact, the new Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 has in-lens OS (you can decide if SR or OS is better) and HSM, a close-up mode (1:2.7) for pseudo-macro work. It's $449/shipped.
Adorama says it is "temporarily out of stock" of the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5, but will let you order it for $369.
|
Forum: Post Your Photos!
04-21-2010, 06:40 PM
|
|
It's a good shot considering it's thru a window. As jct us101 said, a boost in contrast would help a lot.
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
04-21-2010, 06:02 PM
|
|
miss alex, have you tried getting closer to the subject? If you get an adapter or separate diopter lens, you will need to get closer to your subject in order to focus properly. And also learn to handle very thin DOF. This presents it's own challenges...
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
04-21-2010, 05:59 PM
|
|
According to her sig, the OP has the 90mm f/2.8 1:1 macro.
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
04-21-2010, 05:55 PM
|
|
I was thinking about posting a few comparo shots, but if there is a fairly sizeable interest, I would definitely go more in depth, explore the handling of each TC, explore usage in different scenarios.
And, of course, this would be a good thread if someone had a suggestion.
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
04-21-2010, 04:24 PM
|
|
Hmmm, maybe 2 votes out of 39 views is telling me something... :hmm:
|