|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
11-01-2007, 09:55 PM
|
| |
I never felt like the length of the 50-200 w/lens hood was a problem
Having to change lenses while walking around was. I missed shots becuase I had the 18-55 or 50-200 mounted when I needed the other....
Back in 2001 I went to Cambodia, Thailand, and Nepal with an Oly C2100z, 38-380mm eq. Thought I'd died and gone to heaven. All that range mounted on the camera was a dream.
Of course a 2 meg, small sensor camera has its limits. But the lens versitility was incredible.
My sister has a Tamron 18-250 and I really enjoyed shooting it while she was visiting. Plenty wide for most stuff at 27mm eq. and lots of reach at 375mm eq. Image quality is excellent. It's hard to imagine a better travel lens.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
11-01-2007, 08:11 PM
|
| |
I spent about three months in Bangladesh, Myanmar, Thailand and Laos last winter with a Pentax 10-17, 18-55, and 50-200. I ended up using the 50-200 as my 'walk around' most of the time. And I pretty much quit carrying the 10-17 unless I was headed to a large building (temple/fort) where I was concerned that I couldn't back up enough to get everything in the frame.
I've been traveling in Asia for the last 25+ years and find longer lenses very useful. I made one trip with a Minolta A100 (max 200mm eq.) and another where my main camera packed it in and I had to shoot for a month with my backup Fuji F10 (max 105mm eq.).
I missed a lot of shots that I wanted.
I'm taking off in a couple of months with a Tamron (or Pentax) 18-250. I'll take the 10-17, just in case....
(Boy, I wish those 18x superzooms were better at higher ISO settings.)
BTW, I like longer lenses for shooting portraits/people. Getting into someone's face with a wide lens tends to make them tighten up. I find it better to stand back away and let them relax. Different if you're shooting people you know or are comfortable being photographed.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-03-2007, 12:05 PM
|
| |
If I needed an 18-250 "right now" I wouldn't hesitate and would buy the Tamron. It's an excellent lens.
Once the Pentax is out and reviewed you can make the decision to upgrade or not. If the Pentax is significantly better then you might decide to sell and buy.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-29-2007, 10:34 AM
|
| |
You can easily see the sweet spots by reading the Popular Photography review.
Look for where the lens earns a 'red box'.
You'll see that it drops to its lowest performance levels at the 250mm when printed larger than 11"x 14" and fully stopped down or totally wide open.
If you print at 11" x 14" or smaller you're basically going to be shooting a lens that earns an A+ or A grade at most settings except at 250mm. There is earns some Bs and B+s at 11" x 14".
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
06-29-2007, 10:25 AM
|
| |
I bought an Artic Butterfly to clean my sensor. It's worked fine but I've read reports of the brush flying off when you 'charge' it.
Certainly don't want to be cleaning your sensor with a brush that lands somewhere nasty.
Just a warning to anyone who might be considering that product.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
06-29-2007, 10:22 AM
|
| |
OK, I'm a "poser".
I'm also a successful professional (in the original meaning of the word) and businessman who made all the money he needed for the rest of his life by the time he was 44 and retired to do the things that most interested him.
The issue discussed was whether the professional photographer was making the best possible decisions regarding labor. Should he use his $150 per hour "employee" to do $20 per hour work or should he use his employees more efficiently. It seemed to me that he was allowing himself to operate using false assumptions and hampering his bottom line.
YMMV. Have a nice day.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
06-28-2007, 03:39 PM
|
| |
Poser?
Well, that's rather insulting. But if that inflates your ego....
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-28-2007, 09:00 AM
|
| |
First, you might want to read this...Zooms vs. Primes
Then you might want to read the Tamron 18-250 reviews.
Perhaps you'll come away with a new set of beliefs....
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-28-2007, 08:50 AM
|
| |
Avant -
I assume you own the kit lens. How about the Pentax 50-200?
If so, have you taken any 'side by side' comparison shots that you could post?
And that 'slow to focus on the long end' thing. My 50-200 has problems at times in low contrast situations. It helps to give it a start with the focusing ring. Same for the T 18-250?
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
06-28-2007, 08:28 AM
|
| |
Then it's time to hire help. There are people out there (stay at home parents, students) who would kill for a part time $25-$50 an hour job doing your editing, backups, mail runs. If you can spend your time shooting at $150 then the difference between $150 and $50 flows to your bank account.
It should only take seconds per frame to check histograms and pick the shot that is best to send on to editing. Plus, since you can review your shots before you leave the shoot you stand a much better chance of getting home with what you need.
Have you read the article on Galbraith's site about the first National Geographic feature article shot exclusively with digital? The photographer talks about how he ended up shooting far fewer frames as he was able to review the day's shot and didn't have to burn a lot of "insurance" film.
That's not true any longer. We're past the days of needing to update every two/three years to get enough pixels and rapid response. A digital that produces what you need today will continue to produce those shots for years.
Computers have also matured. There's no need to chase clock speed any longer.
And read up on archival DVDs.
And investigate on line mass storage. You might find it advantageous to turn your storage over to professionals. A fast web connection and a cheap desktop could send your day's shots off to a very reliable storage facility.
Or hire someone to design and set up an easy to use "computer farm". You should have a system that allows you to come in from a shoot, stick your card in a slot, push a button or two, and have your RAWs automatically copied to multiple hard drives, some located in a separate physical location.
Unlike film, digital files are easy to protect from fire, theft, angry significant others....
Have you talked to those "film-experts" whose business is most likely shrinking by the day? Are they forward looking enough to see that there might be a business opportunity for them to start doing digital editing and storage?
I'll bet they would be glad to do the job for $100 an hour, thus freeing you from work you don't like and letting you put an extra $50 in your jeans.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
06-27-2007, 08:42 AM
|
| |
Doesn't feel to me as if you're being intellectually honest here. Let's look at a couple of things.
First, the number of frames that you might shoot using film or digital. 20 rolls of 36 exp. film is 720 images. If you're shooting that over a week's time (assuming an active pro) and shooting "hundreds of digital RAW" are you really comparing equal numbers. Or are you shooting less film?
Second, the time savings. You process your digital shots thus using some of your time. You hire someone else to process your film shots thus using someone else's time. Time is saved, it's just moved to someone else's clock. You could just as easy hire someone else to process your digital images.
Filing and storage? Digital wins by a huge margin. If you're spending more time filing digital shots than film you need to revisit your storage routine. Massively large hard drives prices have fallen to very reasonable levels and in no way can one find a specific negative as rapidly as a properly stored digital file.
Further you say that film is not more expensive. That needs some more fleshing out. Digital bodies no longer cost thousands of dollars more than film bodies. Film and processing are reoccurring costs.
"Twenty rolls of film" are probably costing you $200 to $300 per week, around a thousand dollars a month, twelve thousand dollars a year.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-26-2007, 10:44 PM
|
| |
The Tamron 18-250 has received some very good reviews. It's better than their 18-200 and better than the highly regarded Nikon 18-200 VR.
Good technical review on Popular Photography's site.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
06-26-2007, 09:37 AM
|
| |
After a few days of shooting -
My K100D staying in RAW and staying in Drive mode when I turn it off.
It will not stay in Auto Bracket.
Don't know if I have a problem or not. Time will tell.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
06-21-2007, 03:28 PM
|
| |
How do I keep my K100D from reverting to Jpeg when I turn it off/on?
Any way to keep it in auto-bracketing/drive mode when going off/on?
Why doesn't my camera obey me?
I tried reading the manual but suffer from male-related instruction reading and direction asking dysfunction.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
06-21-2007, 11:36 AM
|
| |
To be fair to film, if you use a slow, fine-grained film and carefully scan you probably will be able to detect a bit more resolution in very large prints. (Although there's a point where digital pulls back ahead due to the lack of grain in very, very large prints.)
And negative film may give you a bit more dynamic range without doing multiple exposures and stacking.
So if you are shooting in that fairly small niche then perhaps film will work for you.
--
As for print making in general and projecting....
Those who are expert at both wet printing from a negative and dry printing from a scan/digital capture seem to have largely closed up their darkrooms.
Projecting - digital capture/in-computer "perfecting"/transferring to transparency would be my route these days. (Actually I'd prefer digital projection, but if one just can't shake that Carousel jones....)
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-21-2007, 09:27 AM
|
| |
Thanks.
But the DA 14 2.8 seems to be a $700 lens that's only a half stop or so faster than f3.5.
And the DA 21 3.2 is not as wide and only a tiny bit faster than the kit lens.
(Perhaps the image quality is significantly higher. Haven't researched that yet.)
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
06-21-2007, 09:21 AM
|
| |
How do I keep my K100D from reverting to Jpeg from RAW when I turn it off/back on?
Any way to keep it in auto-bracket?
Why doesn't my camera obey me?
(I've tried reading the manual but I suffer from male-related instruction and asking directions dysfunction.)
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-21-2007, 08:41 AM
|
| |
How about something wide, reasonably fast, not very heavy, and not too expensive?
I want to capture dimly lit interiors (temples, palaces, etc.). I need wide angle to get everything in. I don't want to drag my bag all day long just for the few shots for which I might use the lens. And I can be quite happy with an older manual focus. Interiors tend to stay stationary.
Something around 18mm might be nice. And it would have to be significantly faster than f3.5.
I wouldn't be asking for too much would I?
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
06-21-2007, 08:32 AM
|
| |
~25 years with film. 98% transparencies.
Spent over a year scanning in my 12,000+ "keepers".
(OK, I set the hurdle on the low side.... ;o)
Bought my first digital - only two megs. Haven't shot a frame of film since.
A simple Oly 2 meg compact gave me 'better' images than what I had been getting from film. I couldn't print them as large or shine them on a screen, but I had control like I'd never had before and learned to be a better photographer in a hurry.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-17-2007, 10:10 PM
|
| |
"...that was as fast as the Nikon (3.5-5.6)"
The Nikon 18-200 is not that much faster than the Tamron 18-250. The Tamron is 5.6 at 100mm and reaches 6.3 by the time one gets to 200mm.
That's less than a stop (less than half a stop?) given that a full stop over f5.6 would be f8.
|
|
Forum: Site Suggestions and Help
06-16-2007, 11:22 PM
|
| |
Hummmm........
That strange orange thing - not what I typed. ": o )" without the spaces.
No big deal. Just didn't want to be misunderstood.
|
|
Forum: Site Suggestions and Help
06-16-2007, 11:20 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Site Suggestions and Help
06-08-2007, 09:28 AM
|
| |
The PF icon that appears on the FireFox tab. It's kind of a black blob when one has multiple tabs open.
I've got a couple dozen tabs open right now. (That's usual for me.) Some of their icons are quite recognizable - especially Gmail, Luminous Landscape, TrekEarth, Huffington Post. Some sites don't even bother (like Popular Photography). PF's could be more distinct.
It's not all that important. Just something to consider for your 'do list' if you get bored.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
06-08-2007, 09:20 AM
|
| |
My aunt, the family photographer, produced a lot of shots of people who were missing the tops of their heads. We finally figured out that she leaned "into" the camera as she pressed the shutter button.
Try changing your shooting technique so that you don't "press" the button, but "squeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzzzeeee" the button by closing up your grip rather than pushing down.
(I'd suggest that you use somewhat the motion one uses when milking a cow, but probably no one would know what I meant. ;o)
Some people even use a rolling motion with their index finger to depress the shutter so that they create as little camera motion as possible.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
05-29-2007, 10:52 PM
|
| |
Question.
What's your "walk around every day" lens?
If you are going to be very intentional about taking pictures and go for only the carefully consider shots then changing lenses isn't too big of a deal. If you're going to go out and shoot every interesting thing that crosses your path, ....
I recently spent 2.5 months walking around with a 10-17, 18-55, and 50-200. I found myself using the 50-200 most of the time but wished it were a bit wider at the low end.
I'm following the reviews of the Tamron 18-250 closely. That lens and a carefully selected prime or two for the most 'special' shots might be my choice next time out.
If you take the five lenses listed in the above be prepared to give yourself permission to leave some of them in your room. My 10-17 didn't go out too often with me. Might have had a been in places with better 'landscapes'.
|
