|
Forum: Pentax Price Watch
11-29-2018, 09:46 PM
|
| |
They do deserve their poor online reviews. I clicked on the order status link in the confirmation email just now and it shows as 'order canceled'. Mind you, up to now they didn't bother to let me know, even though they had no qualms about immediately starting to spam me with unrelated emails after I had placed the order. So yeah, they definitely cannot be recommended.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
08-22-2016, 10:25 AM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
01-18-2018, 01:49 AM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
09-29-2017, 12:44 PM
|
| |
Overall, I see very little between them for these two sets. The notable outlier is lens #4, which has a downright nasty looking bokeh in the f/8 set. I'm thinking this might be the Fujita.
|
|
Forum: Winners' Showcase
02-01-2017, 11:08 AM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
04-14-2016, 02:51 PM
|
| |
The 10-17 at 10mm, just mildly cropped, no distortion correction applied, processed with Nik Silver Efex for drama. This is such a fun little lens!
 Memorial Point by Ludger Solbach, on Flickr
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
04-14-2016, 11:08 PM
|
| |
I understand where you're coming from and I agree that if you have the option to fully control your environment, there is little excuse for not shooting at base ISO, but to me, this is not all there is to photography. Many scenarios do not allow for optimally controlling the parameters, for instance by flash not being permitted. There is a whole slew of iconic photos that aren't technically perfect, and which make me thankful that the photographer didn't give a hoot about technicalities. To quote one of the proponents of unshackling the photographer from being a slave to perfection...
:D
As a case in point, just one of many masterpieces ("Rue Mouffetard") by the man himself.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
04-08-2016, 10:36 AM
|
| |
Ok, it seems you also changed the print size from 10" to 24" in order to get such low limits. Anyway, the key point here is that one should not expect the K-1 at f/22 to outperform the K-3 at f/11 in terms of diffraction. So, to those folks who feel like their lowly K-3 or K-5 is not not up to snuff anymore with the K-1 on the horizon, I say this - just go out and shoot, it really ain't all that bad. :lol:
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
03-22-2016, 02:40 PM
|
| |
Where did you get that number from? See this page and this for evidence that the effects kick in much sooner. With my APS-C gear, I usually try to stay below f/11 if at all possible.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
12-27-2015, 12:16 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
09-22-2015, 02:54 PM
|
| |
The 55-300 is my most-used lens, and most shots end up taken at 300mm. No complaints here.
 Purple Hat by Ludger Solbach, on Flickr
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
08-17-2015, 03:53 PM
|
| |
The scale being shifted towards the high end doesn't bother me at all. Just like probably about everybody else who has been around here long enough, I have gotten used to doing the adjustment subconsciously in my head. The presence of those unavoidable 'heck-let's-mark-em-all-10s' votes doesn't bother me either. Removing outliers is only the most cumbersome way of dealing with this, the simplest is to trust the fact that the best way to improve the statistics is increasing the sample size. If there are only a handful of votes for a lens, I read them all anyway to see whether the write-up gives me any clues about the level of the author's experience. If they nitpick on a lens relative to their prized Summilux, I know what to think of that 6 rating, same with that perfect 10 if they rave about how it holds its own against their previous 1980s default-standard zoom.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
08-08-2015, 10:50 PM
|
| |
Got myself the Pentax 10-17 and have been enjoying it a lot so far. This baby is sharp when stopped down a bit. It also shows some very severe fringing. The 11mm shot below has (had, in case of the fringing) both in spades.
 Telescope by Ludger Solbach, on Flickr
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
08-23-2015, 08:41 PM
|
| |
Pentax 10-17mm fisheye on K-3 @ 10mm, f/6.3, 1/800s, ISO 200, about 30% cropped for effect
 Koi by Ludger Solbach, on Flickr
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
08-23-2015, 09:18 PM
|
| |
If my DA L 55-300 should ever get lost or damaged, it will have to be replaced immediately. This is on a K-3 @ 300mm, f/6.3, 1/1000s, ISO 200.
 Ready for Take-off by Ludger Solbach, on Flickr
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
08-14-2015, 09:45 AM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: General Photography
08-14-2015, 12:53 PM
|
| |
Unless you care for him enough to show him the errors of his ways and help him be a better person (it doesn't sound like it), just block him on Facebook and walk away. He's not worth wasting your time on, not without him agreeing to a consultation fee, that is. FWIW, I dig your Flickr stuff.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
08-08-2015, 11:05 PM
|
| |
See the attached 100% crop. This was with the K-3 at f/5.6, 3200 ISO, 1/10s (handheld, elbows on the floor). You can count the marks on the wheel with ease.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
08-10-2015, 09:52 AM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
08-03-2015, 10:49 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
08-04-2015, 10:26 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
08-04-2015, 08:48 AM
|
| |
Thanks! The Super-Takumar 1:3.5/24 is my latest acquisition. It was a bit more pricey than my other Taks, and it's the only one in my humble collection with slightly sticky aperture blades, but I still quite like it. Here's another one:
 Bird of Paradise by Ludger Solbach, on Flickr
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
07-28-2015, 03:48 PM
|
| |
I must say you have a rather interesting way of not arguing ("correct, false, wrong"). I would still like to see you respond to the article I was referring to in support of the notion that dynamic range does in fact decrease with pixel size, which, correct me if I'm wrong, is in direct contradiction to what you were claiming above.
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
05-09-2015, 01:46 PM
|
| |
It feels a bit like talking to myself, but since this might be of interest to others, if not now then perhaps later, I'll share it anyway. Here's a few things I learned.
1) Intel Graphics Driver - I uninstalled the ASUS pre-installed version and replaced it with the generic Intel one. This required using the driver sweeper app. Without a clean uninstall, the system would refuse to install the generic driver. I'm not sure this was crucial to me being able to disable all adaptive settings, but in case it was, I wanted to mention it. Now, Intel did a great job at hiding the relevant settings in their fancy-schmancy graphics control panel. There is an easy-to-miss drop-down at the top left, right next to the settings category on each page. For instance, under 'video', you find things like "Color Enhancement" and "Image Enhancement". I disabled all settings that seemed suspicious, especially relevant seemed Video->Image Enhancement->Advanced->Contrast Enhancement and Power->OnBattery->DisplayPowerSavingTechnology.
2) The Gamma Test Panels - these are automatically resized in all my web browsers! Since they must be viewed at the generic resolution, this makes them misleading. It seems the amount of rescaling is directly tied to the desktopRightClick->screenResolution->MakeTextOrOtherItemsLargerOrSmaller setting in Windows 8. When I download the Gamma test image and open it in the Windows image viewer after calibration, the gamma is spot-on at 2.2 in all columns. Since the gamma panels are useless with the way they're displayed in the browsers, I'm not yet fully convinced that Chrome and Firefox properly use the Windows look-up table after calibration, but eyeballing a bunch of images and comparing to the desktop view makes it seem that way. Firefox does need some setting changes in about:config for enabling color management, though.
3) The Spyder4Express software - it's very basic, and one is tempted to just click 'next' through the screens. DON'T do that. First make sure Go->Preferences->LCDnative is un-checked, in order to get the proper white balance (this panel is way too blue and without doing that, it remains that way after calibration) and then click on Go->Full Calibration.
It was quite an ordeal I must say, but worth it in the end. The panel is operating at its full, considerable potential now, so with the caveat that you have to be fine with it not being like that right out of the box and that you need to put in some effort, I'd consider the ASUS ux305fa-asm1 ultrabook very usable for photo editing (and a bargain too, at $699 in the US).
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
03-05-2015, 01:15 AM
|
| |
I haven't yet decided whether I like it better than the 1.4/50, but the Super-Takumar 1:1.8/55 is definitely no slouch. It seems to be doing particularly well with LoCa. I know that in a shot like this, my Rokinon/Samyang 1.4/85 would have that white sleeve all greenish.
 Holding On by Ludger Solbach, on Flickr
|
