|
Forum: Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories
10-22-2013, 08:43 PM
|
| |
Crow with likely road-killed squirrel. The box provides a nice label: Raptor 1 (altho the phone company would likely argue that "RPTR" is short for "Repeater," but what do they know?).
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
10-18-2013, 12:31 PM
|
| |
I assume you mean a battery holder that allows the use of AA batteries? My first priority would be to get a spare Li-Ion battery. A fully charged battery typically lasts me through an entire day of shooting with the K-5. However, I don't typically do a lot of video or live view, which will eat through batteries faster. Even then, two batteries should suffice for all but the most intensive use, and the extra battery is easy to carry.
4 AA batteries will last longer, especially if you use lithiums, but the long-term cost is higher. Might be a good choice for critical applications. I sometimes used AA lithiums for important shoots with my K200D, and never came close to exhausting them in a day.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-18-2013, 12:11 PM
|
| |
Sounds like you are looking to expand your photographic horizons, perhaps without having a specific use in mind? If so, for my money the 50-135 provides more photographic options, with its silent focusing, weather resistance, and faster lens -- unless you really need the additional range. It is excellent for portraiture and stage events. Build and handling are superb. Although there have been SDM problems, I have personally used mine extensively over 5 years without a hitch, and the SDM issues do seem to have been largely resolved. I had the 55-300 for 2-3 years but never really warmed to it. For me, the image quality was marginal above about 250mm, a range that I frequently wanted. Indoor and other low-light use was limited by its slow max aperture. Edge sharpness is also marginal if not stopped down a bit, and is never really good (I frequently shoot dog shows, where the important head is usually near the edge of the frame). And the feel, handling, and smoothness of manual focusing and zoom are simply not comparable to the 50-135. So if you have the bucks, no contest --- unless you really need that long-end range.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
10-18-2013, 10:19 AM
|
| |
A number of years ago I made a career switch to become a real estate appraiser (subsequently left that gig). The first lesson from the man I trained under, said only a little tongue-in-cheek, was: "Rule Number One: Real estate agents are stupid people." Let's just say they have different priorities, but greed ranks high on the list. The barriers to entry into the profession are small, and only a small percentage are good at what they do and make a decent living. Thus I think most are desperate to get any edge, often at the expense of others.
PS -- My mom was a part-time real estate agent, so though my comments reflect the prevalent dog-eat-dog mentality in the business, they aren't meant to be mean-spirited.
|
|
Forum: Sold Items
10-16-2013, 05:09 PM
|
| |
PM sent re: hot shoe adapters and cord.
Don
|
|
Forum: Sold Items
10-16-2013, 05:07 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Post Your Photos!
02-25-2013, 11:18 AM
|
| |
I really enjoyed the balance and framing in this photo, and your use of B&W works great to impart the the feeling of the weather. Thanks -- great job.
-- Don
|
|
Forum: Monthly Photo Contests
02-25-2013, 10:50 AM
|
| |
The 3-D effect is remarkable! Nicely done.
--- Don
|
|
Forum: Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories
10-29-2012, 11:44 PM
|
| |
Guess I'll followup with reflections on the month. First, thanks for the input on the photos. Nice to get some positive reinforcement, as well as critical commentary.
As for the DA* 300, it is a great lens. I had rented it before, and took the plunge and bought it last May. I typically use it for outdoor sports and dog shows, but wanted to expand my horizons with the lens. While a great lens, it is tough putting it to use on a daily basis, and I really fudged by taking a number of pictures for which shorter lenses would have been more appropriate. The moral: one can get by with fewer lenses (good for tempering LBA).
Interestingly, midway through the month I found out that the focus was off a bit and required a -3 adjustment on the K-5. Bit strange, since I did a test when I first got it and determined no change. Unfortunately, that test was done indoors under artificial light, which I later learned can introduce AF errors. I probably didn't notice because many of my photos were action photos under low light and relatively slow shutter speeds, so tended to be slightly soft anyway. I also frequently use either manual focus or tweak AF -- so AF issues don't appear.
However, with some regrets I will probably sell the lens. I just don't really need the reach that often. When I do, if light is good and I can stop down a bit, I can get by with less expensive alternatives. In lower light, I can also generally get by with the 200/2.8, and don't want to invest in either the size or cost of a 300/2.8.
Don
|
|
Forum: Post Your Photos!
10-26-2012, 09:51 PM
|
| |
Whoa....is that a toxic bath? BTW, nice photo.
|
|
Forum: Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories
10-26-2012, 09:49 PM
|
| |
Count me in. After using a 300mm in October, time to go to the other end and use the DA 15 Limited.
|
|
Forum: Post Your Photos!
10-21-2012, 01:26 PM
|
| |
Wow --- certainly looks like it does the job. Your photo is fantastic --- hope to see more from this setup. Thanks for the details --- interesting and creative, even if I'm unlikely to implement anything similar.
--- Don
|
|
Forum: Welcomes and Introductions
10-21-2012, 01:21 PM
|
| |
Welcome Steve. I made the move to DSLR four years ago, and have never looked back. Substantial initial investment relative to film, but brings a lot of advantages as well as long-term savings. I know you'll find a lot of great information on this forum to help you make a decision.
-- Don
|
|
Forum: Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories
10-19-2012, 06:02 PM
|
| |
Fantastic, and richly deserved Mar. Kudos!
|
|
Forum: Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories
10-16-2012, 12:55 PM
|
| |
Hands down, the DA* 50-135. When I switched to DSLRs, this is the lens that sold me on Pentax (I also had some legacy glass which swayed my decision). I was blown away when I first tested it in a camera shop, and after way too many subsequent lenses, it is still my most used and keeps the smile on my face. Maybe I'm just old school, since a Vivitar 70-210 was also one of my favorite lenses on film.
However, I must say that the Limited primes are making serious inroads...
|
|
Forum: Post Your Photos!
10-16-2012, 12:09 PM
|
| |
I too really like the contrast between near and far in the second photo --- Outstanding! Good use of what's there. We have also been plagued with haze from fires here in Colorado; fortunately not many of our own the last couple months ;>)
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-30 & K-50
10-16-2012, 11:50 AM
|
| |
Best approach would be to try some framing using your 18-135 to determine the best focal length for your circumstances. You can also determine how much light you have, and whether you absolutely need faster lenses. Although the 18-135 is slower and not so sharp as the primes you are considering, you might find its speed, depth of field, and rendition for portraiture (you probably won't want the photos tack sharp) adequate for your needs. Although a 1.4 or 2.0 lens is attractive for speed, you might find it difficult to get both baby and mother in sharp focus when they are used wide-open. Another alternative would be to consider a constant f/2.8 zoom covering the range, such as the Tamron 28-75.
That said, I think you will be happiest with a 35mm length. I would suggest 50mm or longer for a head and shoulders portrait, partly to not exaggerate the nose, but this shouldn't be a problem with a wider view. For adequate depth of field, I suspect you will be using f/2.8 or slower most of the time anyway so you have a lot of choices at both lengths. With mainly stationary subjects, my guess is that you could get good photos with exposures as slow as 1/30th or less. Given the likely flat lighting, you will probably find that you can take excellent shots at ISO 800 or even 1600, which should allow adequate shutter speeds and f/values.
|
|
Forum: Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories
09-30-2012, 09:37 PM
|
| |
OK, time to jump in, since it's not yet October 1st here. Look forward to the challenge. Since I'm taking a lot of sports pics anyway, I'll be using the DA* 300.
Don
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
09-30-2012, 08:01 PM
|
| |
Looking at the MTF figures on sigmaphoto.com, it looks like the Sigma 70-300 OS version has comparable characteristics with the earlier APO version on APS-C sized sensors. The optical improvements made in the OS version seem to be mainly in edge performance on full size sensors. So if you go with Sigma, can't see any value paying extra for the OS version for use with Pentax K-5, unless there have been mechanical improvements, which seems unlikely.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
09-30-2012, 02:52 PM
|
| |
Hi David --- Why the differences in scores for various versions of Sigma's 70-300? My understanding is that Sigma tweaked the lens formulas for most (all?) of their lenses when they added OS; certainly did for the 70-300. I think they traded off some close focusing for better overall performance. Tough to believe that the new lens is THAT much better, however. If you look at the reviews, they are all over the place. Some of the variation may be due to sample variation, although I suspect that most is because various people put their emphasis on various lens aspects. The Sigma is an inexpensive, consumer-grade lens, and will be average in most respects and outstanding in none. But bottomline, it is a functional lens that represents good value and can produce acceptable or better images under most circumstances when intelligently used.
Don
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
09-30-2012, 09:58 AM
|
| |
Hi David --- Although the range is very attractive, I have not used the Pentax 17-70, mainly because I find f/4 a bit slow for my uses - YMMV. I have been happy with the Tamron 28-75. Even though it is lacking on the short end and not WR, I use it more than the 18-55, but usually end up carrying a small, wide prime along with it. Just purchased a Tamron 17-50, so can't say much about it, although I plan to use it interchangeably with the 28-75 and Pentax 50-135 for my walk-around lens, depending on my anticipated needs for the day. Seriously considered the Pentax 18-135 for its WR and nice range, and might ultimately go that route, although the sharpness of the Tammys and 50-135 was the deciding factor at present.
I have had both the Sigma 70-300 and Pentax 55-300. I like the close focus of the Sigma, and found the sharpness equivalent between the two, although sharpness drops noticeably, but not horribly, in both above 225mm or so. But I l liked everything else about the Pentax --- smaller, better build, smoother zoom, better rendition. I think you'll be happier with the Pentax, but If you don't expect to use it much, and mainly at the long end, the much lower price of the Sigma would tip my decision.
Don
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
09-26-2012, 08:27 AM
|
| |
Hi Harish - Although HDR and Stacking are similar in that they combine a sequence of photos, they do so for different purposes, the changes that are made from photo to photo are different, and the post-processing is different. HDR is used when you want to capture detail in both the darkest and lightest parts of the scene. The camera sensor is limited in this regard, at best covering perhaps a range of 12 stops at optimum (low) ISO. HDR allows the photographer to effectively increase this range.
Stacking is used to expand the amount of the scene that is in sharp focus. This is probably most often used in macro-photography, where even high f-values such as f-22 or even f-32 are often insufficient to keep everything in sharp focus. For stacking you should typically be using the same f-value and exposure for each shot, and adjusting focus by refocusing on different parts of the subject. The intent is for the entire subject to be in sharp focus in the processed image.
You typically wouldn't use stacking in landscape photography. Using a tripod, you can use a combination of low shutter shutter speeds and large f-values, which provides a large range in which everything is acceptably sharp. In contrast, HDR can be valuable in landscape photography, although I would only use it when absolutely necessary.
Hope this helps!
Don
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
09-26-2012, 08:00 AM
|
| |
Hi Harish - For the photo of the building, I suspect that a 4 stop range would be insufficient, but it depends on what you want to achieve. One way to find out is to use AV mode, set your f-stop, then determine your desired exposure for both the brightest and darkest areas of the scene, noting the shutter speed for each. If the range is larger than what can be achieved using auto bracketing, set the camera on M mode, set the same f-stop, and shoot enough photos at varying shutter speeds to cover the entire range, with 1-2 stop differences between the photos.
Generally you would be using HDR to accommodate large differences in lighting. If you just want to lighten or darken certain areas of the photograph by a stop or two, you can generally do this in post-processing. In this case it is better to underexpose slightly, making sure that the highlights are not blown out, then bring up the shadows in post.
Using HDR will generally cause some loss of overall quality -- perfect registration of all photos is generally not possible -- so I wouldn't recommend it if it's not really needed.
Don
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
09-25-2012, 01:02 PM
|
| |
Hi -- Not exactly sure, but looks like your photos have similar exposures values. You want to have some photos exposed properly for the brightest areas of the scene, and others for the darkest areas of the scene. Choose one aperture setting for all of your photos, then vary your exposure by using different shutter speeds. You could use automatic exposure bracketing to get a range of exposures, although your range from darkest to brightest seems very high, so manually choosing your exposure seems best in this case.
Don
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
09-25-2012, 12:40 PM
|
| |
Hi --- Stacking is primarily for expanding focus, while HDR is for expanding dynamic range. Both rely on taking multiple photos from the same position and combining them into one. In stacking you change the point(s) of focus, while in HDR you change the exposure(s).
Don
|
