Forum: Lens Clubs
1 Day Ago
|
|
I use Lightroom 6 for most of my images. Now I'm not sure that in technical sense, LR allows me to pull more detail out of KP generated images. But the program may help improve the illusion that I do so. One of the things I try to do in LR is bring up the shadows and tame some of the hi-lights without compromising contrast and tonal gradations. I seek a look that looks natural but, in terms of color and contrast, is a little bit better than nature. Assuming this is successful, what it does it allows the detail in the image to be presented in the most attractive way possible, which I might in fact make the image seem more detailed. There is also, it should be noted, a tendency (1) to confuse contrast with sharpness; and (2) to confuse image quality with sharpness. So people will often assume that a more contrasty, better looking image must be sharper, since sharpness is often assumed to be the primary or sole factor of image quality.
Here's an image shot with the K-1 and the FA 80-320: |
Forum: Lens Clubs
4 Days Ago
|
|
With the F 85mm f2.8: |
Forum: Pentax KP
4 Days Ago
|
|
With the DA 35 Ltd: |
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
4 Days Ago
|
|
This sort of mis-characterizes what character is. Nobody buys lenses because they have chromatic aberrations or purple fringing or screw-drive AF. But some may be able to put up with those defects to gain in other areas. The problem with the hyper sharp, over corrected lenses is that images from them can look flat and clinical. I suspect this is particularly with larger sensor set-ups. If you're shorting with a larger medium, you don't need your lenses to be quite as sharp, because part of the job of capturing the detail necessary to bring off the image can be left to the size of the sensor (or the film). And if your lens doesn't have to be quite as sharp, that leaves more room for other design goals, such as the "smooth but precise" rendering we see in the limiteds and in older, non-computer designed lenses.
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 III Monochrome
5 Days Ago
|
|
I mostly agree with this. Now there are, to be sure, some optical compromises in the DA 21 (and the DA 15) that you're not going to find in the DFA 21. That's one of the reasons the DFA 21 is so much more expensive. It's possible, for example, that even at f8 the DFA 21 is sharper in the corners and the very far edges. But are tack sharp corners really worth the extra ~$1,000?
Another possible consideration is filter use. The DFA uses 67mm filters. How many other lenses do you have that use 67mm filters? All the DA limited primes use 49mm, as does the DFA 50 and 100 macros.
|
Forum: Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories
03-10-2024, 12:34 PM
|
|
With the DA 15: |
Forum: General Photography
03-10-2024, 12:31 PM
|
|
False color infrared: |
Forum: Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories
03-10-2024, 12:27 PM
|
|
With the K-5iis + DA 16-85 + Silver Efex Pro: |
Forum: Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories
03-04-2024, 10:38 AM
|
|
With the DA 15-30: |
Forum: Lens Clubs
03-04-2024, 10:30 AM
|
|
With the DA* 300 + DA 1.4x converter: |
Forum: Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories
03-04-2024, 06:16 AM
|
|
With the M 20/4: |
Forum: Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories
03-04-2024, 06:13 AM
|
|
K-5iis + DA 21 + SilverEfexPro: |
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
03-04-2024, 05:49 AM
|
|
With the FA 80-320: |
Forum: General Photography
03-04-2024, 05:44 AM
|
|
A more recent effort (from last week), developed in LR and Silver Efex Pro: |
Forum: Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories
03-01-2024, 05:25 PM
|
|
With the K-5 + K 35/3.5: |
Forum: Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories
02-26-2024, 11:24 AM
|
|
With the KP + DA 21 + Silver Efex Pro: |
Forum: Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories
02-25-2024, 05:38 PM
|
|
With the K-5iis + DA 15 Ltd: |
Forum: General Photography
02-25-2024, 05:35 PM
|
|
False color infrared: |
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
02-25-2024, 05:31 PM
|
|
With the FA 80-320: |
Forum: Lens Clubs
02-25-2024, 02:44 PM
|
|
I've been using a rather modest flash setup: the Pentax AF280T flash with the AFT1 telephoto adapter. That works fine as long as I'm within ~30 feet of the subject.
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
02-23-2024, 06:15 PM
|
|
It's not the design that has been improved. OMS is using the exact same design. What they have done is improved the coatings and the glass used in the lens. For example, Sigma uses four FLD elements and two SLD. These are both a lower type of low dispersion glass, which Sigma uses to reduce the cost of the lens. OMS replaced the four FLD elements with Super ED elements and the two SLD with ED elements. There's likely other elements they've upgraded. Given that this lens has 25 elements in total, upgrading the glass to get the lens to perform to OMS and m43 standards (which are higher than Sigma standards) is going to significantly raise the price of the lens.
When OEMs use introduce these so-called "rebadges" into their lens lineups, there's always some element of upgrading involved, in large part because the OEMs have higher standards than companies like Tamron, Sigma, and Tokina and they're not going to sell lenses under their labels with inferior glass in them.
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
02-23-2024, 10:47 AM
|
|
I can't say I've noticed any difference between my 24 MP KP and my 16 MP K-5 series of cameras. I did, however, notice a slight drop in color richness when I went from the K200D to the K-5.
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
02-23-2024, 10:31 AM
|
|
It's fascinating to see the lens choices of other landscape photographers. I'll admit that however much I'm in awe of the DFA 50/1.4, I find it too large and heavy for everyday use as a prime. I tend to prefer zooms for landscape photography in any case, with maybe two or three limited primes added to bring something special to certain shots. I also can't help noticing a certain level of duplication in this list. Not only the two 50mm primes, but also the 45mm Irix. And then there's a 35mm and a 31mm and two standard zooms. Will there be some sorting out in the future---trading duplicates to help cover the gaps?
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
02-21-2024, 03:42 PM
|
|
I can testify to the superiorty of the seventies era SMC coatings to that of other brands (at least Canon and Nikon). In the summer of 1980, my family went on a trip with my uncle's family. I had in my possession the Pentax K1000 with the M 50/2 and the M 28/2.8. The 50mm had a rubber hood, but I was forced to shoot the M 28 hoodless because our local camera store didn't have any hoods for wide angle lenses. My uncle meanwhile had a Nikon F3 and the most expensive standard zoom in Nikon's system at the time. When we returned from our trip everyone not a single on of my images suffered from lens flare---not even any shots taken in the bright sun with the hoodless M 28. About a quarter of my uncle's shots were ruined by serious flaring issues.
Ten years later I was hired to take stills for a video documentary. I took black and white stills with my K1000 and M 50/3 and color stills with my Dad's F-mount SLR and the Canon 50/1.8. The lighting was done for me by a professional cinematographer. On one of the shoots, every one of the shots taken with Canon kit was ruined by flare. Not one of the shots taken by the K1000 (many of them identical to the Canon shots) had any flaring issues whatsoever. I was of course deeply mortified. I had never run into anything like that before. I had never run into anything like that shooting Pentax, and was shocked to run across it in a brand that at the time was concerned "superior" to Pentax.
I still occasionally will run into old-time Nikon and Canon users who persist in the belief that lens coatings don't matter. But how could they possibly know otherwise? They had never shot Pentax and did not know what it meant to shoot lenses that featured better flare control, better color, and often better contrast. They held to their belief that Nikon (or later Canon) was the "gold standard" and therefore superior in all respects to other brands.
|