Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 
Log in or register to remove ads.

Showing results 1 to 21 of 21 Search: Liked Posts
Forum: Travel, Events, and Groups 04-05-2013, 04:37 AM  
Aussie Pentaxians
Posted By Lurch
Replies: 127
Views: 10,162
Been having a chat with Ash and seeing as the Social Groups are a bit empty in activity - here is our
Dedicated Australian Pentaxians Thread!
Attachment 166587
We figured there was so many new Aussies joining up, it was worth it!

Our online retailers:

Spreadsheet for online Pentax Retailers:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ahu_bzBMwRmLdEVQVWIzQVRxdWc1OTB...FE&usp=sharing
Submit a new retailer: https://docs.google.com/a/darksideofthepants.net/forms/d/1AiDT1xsHfcn0IjpeJI...x37cc/viewform

Please be careful when editing the spreadsheet directly. I can restore - I'd just prefer not to :)
Forum: Post Your Photos! 09-28-2011, 01:26 AM  
Landscape Ullswater
Posted By mark lj
Replies: 16
Views: 2,082
As a newb I thought I'd post some photos of my local - Ullswater in the English lake District. All within 5 or 6 miles of home and its just getting to that beautiful time of year again.











Forum: General Talk 09-27-2011, 03:22 PM  
Subject: hr4646
Posted By redrockcoulee
Replies: 34
Views: 4,735
Peacekeeping as fighting wars or UN peacekeeping? Canada used to do a lot of that but not much anymore and not sure how much the US has ever done on UN missions. There is always the point made that the US fights battles for the rest of the world, even ones the rest of us do not think should even be battles. But for peacekeeping for the UN the world depends on the rich countries like Bangledish to do it. Check out those involved and it is a bit surprising besides which power houses generally make poor peacekeepers.

As far as the headquarters it was the US that offered it to the UN and as such I find it hard to fathom why you should complain about member countries sending their leaders to a group that is of every nation on earth if they so wish it to be. It was never intented to be a single world government (nor tries to be) and certainly never intended to be the Nations that Americans like or find useful as allies, it is every nation. Hard to solve problems and avoid conflicts if some of the parties can not be present and the conflicts that are prevented are never news stories.

I could not care less if the UN moved to Europe or Montreal or Australia, for all nations except perhaps those with enormous militairs benefit from having it. Perhaps if the US would cut its own military and rely more on coalitions there would be more understanding plus less cost to you. I found it offensive when Americans complained about the Libya sitution in which they were not the lead role, that a foreigner (Canadian) was in charge. That is one of the reasons that the US has not been much in UN missions, the insistence that an American must always be in charge. A reminder that it is not your world, you are only a major and important part of it, not in charge of it and Iran or Cuba has as much right to have whatever leader they do have then did the Chile under Pinochet or Argentina under the Generals or the central American counties with the terrible right wing governments (not to be confused with those that had terrible left wing governments that the US opposed).

The UN is one of the only places that all countries can exchange messages with each other and if you do not like some of those messages just remember that those people are also hearing your messages, it is a two way street and unless or until the rest of the world looses their sovertity (no spell checker on this computer I guess) there will be leaders the US might like and others they might not but they do represent that country and it should never be the US's place to decide who gets to run which country, something that I believe is agreed upon my people on both sides of your political spectrum. But just because the UN is not an arm of the US does not mean it is not useful or not necessary and without the powerhouse countries or the rogue nations for that matter, at the UN I strongly believe the world would be not only a more dangerous place but you would be spending more military dollars as well
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 09-26-2011, 12:41 PM  
October 1st Pentax announcement
Posted By JinDesu
Replies: 199
Views: 41,489
The K9 comes in Dalmatian, Golden Retriever, and Pitbull.
Forum: Post Your Photos! 08-08-2011, 09:39 PM  
Cityscape An evening in Sydney CBD (Part I)
Posted By Ash
Replies: 13
Views: 1,882
I had the opportunity to venture around the streets of Sydney recently with K-5, a couple of lenses and a tripod on hand. These were heavy enough, so Pentax again gets my thumbs up for portability and practicality. So here are the scenes I was able to visit that evening and spend time capturing:

Beneath the Harbour Bridge


Sydney skyline


Martin Place


Sydney Arcade


State Library of NSW


More to come later...
Forum: Post Your Photos! 08-07-2011, 02:21 AM  
Travel Yushu, a Year After the Earthquake
Posted By kevinschoenmakers
Replies: 12
Views: 2,085
Yushu, an area in the southwest of Qinghai province (China) near Tibet, was struck by an earthquake a little over a year ago. Few buildings were left standing and the death toll reached into the thousands.

Now it is one big building site, garbage dump and refugee camp, all in one.

For more photos, please see my website.

1.


2. An aid station in a tent


3. A man collecting water from a well.


4. A damaged temple.


5. This big statue of legendary King Gesar hadn't a scratch.


6.


7.


8. There was no shortage of female construction workers in Yushu. Apparently this is no taboo for Tibetan women to do hard labor.


9. A woman in her makeshift courtyard.


10. This couple from East China ran a store in Yushu, which collapsed during the quake. Now they moved their store into a tent, but because they do not have the local 'hukou' (a sort of residence permit) they aren't eligilbe for a free government sponsored replacement building.


11.


12. A construction worker from Sichuan - a neighbouring province.


13.


14. A woman looking at her new house as it is being built.


15.


16.
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 07-31-2011, 01:13 AM  
recomposing on a manual lens
Posted By Mike Cash
Replies: 21
Views: 5,344
You may also wish to give some thought to trying the diagonal method of composition instead of the "rule of thirds" method. (a few examples)
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II 07-31-2011, 02:20 AM  
K5 - falls to pieces
Posted By ollibe
Replies: 75
Views: 12,410
Here's couple of shots from disasembly of DA 16-45.

First picture shows place there those pieces are placed inside lens, the picture is just back of lens removed. Second picture is with aperture controller removed and screws opened, so if the screws are loose those things come of easy and can damage camera and lens badly.

I think those parts are used to adjust registering distance between lens barrel and sensor, but thats my guess, since i had two different thickness of those pieces inside lens.

Naturally these are from DA 16-45, so i cannot say for 100% certantly it's same with 16-50.

But anyway what i want to say here that most likely the cause of damage was lens, not K-5. And Op really should also send lens for fix. But certainly its best to let local pentax service center tell there those pieces come from :)
Forum: Post Your Photos! 07-30-2011, 03:19 AM  
Misc An Airtraffic Controller's Nightmare
Posted By Schraubstock
Replies: 9
Views: 1,571
And they are all coming at you.
Forum: General Talk 07-25-2011, 07:25 AM  
New PF Style- Feature List
Posted By Adam
Replies: 17
Views: 6,149
Hi guys,

As you can see, the new style is live, so I won't go into detail on what's new visually, as it's all around you ;)

Note to users of IE6, IE7, and IE8: you are using an out-dated browser that cannot display our new skin. If you're on a personal computer, upgrade your browser ASAP: Download Internet Explorer 9 - Microsoft Windows

The minimum screen resolution supported by the new skin is 1024x600. If you have a smaller screen, please use our low-fi skin (purple icon in the lower-left corner of the page).

However, quite a few site features were actually added alongside the skin. Here's a quick overview:




Search Box
The new search box, located in the upper-right corner of the page, is smart and searches the site area that you're currently browsing (i.e. lens reviews, gallery, or forum). Click on the box to see advanced searching options.



Fixed and Fluid Versions of the Skin
Using these icons in the lower-left corner of the page, you can stretch the layout to fit your screen, or view a 1100px fixed version if you have a very wide screen. If you only have a 1024px screen, stick to the fluid version, which will comfortably inside a maximized window.

This system relies on cookies, so your preference will not be remembered across multiple computers.



New Unanswered Threads
A link in the header is now provided to new unanswered threads since your last visit.




Who Liked This
You can now see who liked a post (this feature loads content on demand, so you may see a progress bar before anything shows up).







Sort by Likes
Threads inside each forum can now be sorted by the number of likes they've gotten- an effective way to find the best threads.




Easily Find the Good Stuff
Member like counts in posts are now links to a list of all their liked posts. Also, you are able to view the number of likes each thread has gotten directly from within the main thread listings.






Likes in Lens/Camera Reviews

You can now "like" reviews in our equipment review databases. The more likes a review has gotten, the earlier it appears in the listings. This system is fully integrated with the forum, so you will see a message in your usercp and profile whenever someone likes your reviews.






My Liked Posts / What I Like
Links to posts that you've liked as well as posts that have been liked by others are now provided. This will let you keep track of threads without having to subscribe to them.








Social Stuff
You will find social plugins at the top of the forum homepage, as well as links to share posts at the bottom of each thread.







3 Colors
The new skin comes in three colors, just like the old one- green, red, and gray. A fourth dark color scheme will also be added to the lineup later on!







Thread Filtering
Access thread filtering controls by clicking on the "Thread Filtering Options" link in a forum. The filtering area will remain visible as long as it is in use.






New Guest Dropdowns
Guests now get links to the latest forum activity, and all translation links are hidden nicely in a single menu.






Style Selector

You can switch between style colors in the lower-left corner of the page.






Quick Access Icons
These icons will be displayed whenever you hover over a forum title on the forum homepage. Left to right, they allow you to: browse new threads, post a thread, subscribe, or view the RSS feed.

Forum: General Talk 07-25-2011, 01:37 AM  
Powerful explosion in Oslo
Posted By savoche
Replies: 188
Views: 20,132
There are no simple answers to something like this. You can ban whatever you want and it will help you none. Complex problems rarely have simple solutions. And if you think you found a simple solution you are most probably wrong.

We can't ban everything that can potentially be abused. I certainly wouldn't want to live in a society that tries.

I believe we are on the right path, and shouldn't let us be easily pushed off that path. Our police should continue doing their daily business unarmed, as they have always done in this country.

We cannot defend a non-violent society with violence. We cannot defend an open society with restrictions.

Today we mourn our losses, though.
Forum: General Talk 07-24-2011, 07:38 PM  
Powerful explosion in Oslo
Posted By Parallax
Replies: 188
Views: 20,132
Got a sack of flour and a fan? You have one hell of a destructive device. Got some fertilizer and diesel fuel? BOOM!. Timothy McVeigh never fired a shot; neither did the Unibomber.
My point is this:
We need to control criminals, not inanimate objects. Until we make the risk/consequences outweigh the the benefits of crime, we will accomplish nothing.
Forum: Lens Clubs 07-18-2011, 04:21 AM  
The 15mm Limited controls my mind - club
Posted By twitch
Replies: 12,402
Views: 2,284,921
Did someone mention ND filters? :lol:


\iiii/ by ducVduc, on Flickr
Forum: Pentax Lens Articles 07-16-2011, 08:35 PM  
draft article on Cheap Macro
Posted By RioRico
Replies: 54
Views: 22,925
Yo! I sometimes tire of re-typing some of the same helpful replies to the same excellent questions. I should write more articles, save my fingers a bit, eh? Here is a draft article on Cheap Macro. I'd like your comments and corrections before I submit it. Do your worst!

UPDATE: This draft is now dead. The official 'live' version is now here [ https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-lens-articles/152336-cheap-macro-b...lose-work.html ] and all further comments should go there. Thanks for everyone's help!!
__________________________________________________________

CHEAP MACRO -- Buying or exploiting a lens for ultraclose work

I see many questions like, "Can you recommend a macro lens for under US$200 (or whatever)?" Well, it all depends on what you mean by 'macro' and 'lens'. :)

'Macro' usually means reaching 1:2 (0.5x) or 1:1 (1x) magnification. Reaching 1:1 isn't hard and needn't be expensive. 'Lens' can be anything from a superduper new multipurpose tool, to something you've salvaged from broken binoculars. The choice may depend on whether flash is needed. On a Pentax P-TTL-only dSLR, using flash can be tricky without an AF or other A-type lens. (Or maybe I'm just a wimp!)

The options:

* MACRO LENSES
* New or used AF macro lens -- not cheap, and you don't really need or want AF for macro work, but good for portrait and short-tele work as well as macro.
* Used A-type MF macro lens -- still not cheap, but you can easily use flash.
* Used non-A-type MF macro lenses, still not cheap (usually) and flash is tricky.

* FLASH-FRIENDLY TRICKS
* Lens extension with aperture control: A-type macro tubes or deglassed TC's.
* Closeup adapters -- very-to-fairly cheap, and you keep auto focus and aperture.
* Teleconverters -- macro-focusing or otherwise, A-type or not.

* EVERYTHING ELSE
* Lens reversal using a cheap mount-reversal adapter.
* Reverse-stacking using a cheap thread-reversal ring.
* Lens extension, totally manual, with cheap macro tubes and/or bellows.
__________________________________________________________

Some basics: No lens can focus closer than its focal length, and that point is also where you get maximum magnification. Short lenses are for close work. Longer lenses allow (or force!) you to work a bit further off. Macro lenses 60mm or shorter are generally for studio work; those 70mm or longer are more suitable for field work; those 200mm or longer can be a bit clumsy handheld. Fine macro work often requires flash and/or a tripod. Autofocus and fast lenses are NOT your friends when shooting macro. A-type auto aperture is handy, though. And except with close-up adapters, MACRO SHOOTING EATS LIGHT! For every X increase in magnification, you lose X+1 f-stops of light.
- DEFINITIONS:
- Clean Macro: No extra glass between the camera and the subject.
- A-Type: Pentax-A manual lens or extension, with auto-aperture contacts.
- MF: Manual focus -- AF: Autofocus -- all Pentax AF lenses are A-type.
- Flatfield Sharpness: Necessary for flat subjects; optional otherwise.
- Tricky Flash: trial-and-error; P-TTL flash is easier with A-type gear.
MACRO LENSES: For 'dedicated' AF or MF macro lenses with auto-aperture control, you gotta pay. Pentax, Tamron, Sigma and others make popular macro lenses -- see the reviews. For 'dedicated' MF macro lenses without auto-aperture control, you still gotta pay. I have three fine manual macro lenses, by Kilfitt and Asahi and Vivitar-Komine... and I rarely use them, preferring to put lenses on CHEAP EXTENSION (see below).

PRO: Easiest to use; flatfield sharpness; for more than just macros.
CON: Fairly to quite expensive.

A-TYPE EXTENSION: With aperture-control extension, you use A-type macro tubes on your AF or A-type camera lens. Such tubes may be hard to find, and not cheap. But A-type teleconverters ARE fairly cheap, and their glass can be easily removed, and you retain aperture automation and thus flash support. These are usually about 25mm thick, so two of them on a 50mm AF lens puts you at 1:1. This is probably the cheapest way to do clean macro with flash.

PRO: Clean and simple; easy flash.
CON: Not quite as easy as macro lenses; eats light; not flatfield sharp.

CLOSE-UP ADAPTERS: Simple uncorrected meniscus +dioptre closeup adapters are cheap and are not great; but corrected adapters can give brilliant results -- see the Raynox Club thread. The fairly inexpensive Raynox DCR-250 reaches 1:1 at about 150mm on a couple lenses I've checked on my K20D. Your mileage may vary! That is, the exact magnification depends on the actual focal length and the focus distance. Adapters don't interfere with AF or auto-aperture; flash is no problem.

PRO: Very to fairly cheap; simple, easy; auto-control if desired.
CON: Imperfect image quality; not flatfield sharp; can be quite acceptable.
___________________________________

SIDEBAR: +DIOPTRE CLOSEUPS

I call these 'strap-ons' and they range from cheap uncorrected meniscus screw-ins to the not-too-expensive corrected 2-element adapters from Raynox, and their ilk. Dioptres are additive -- stack +1+2+3 to get +6dpt. For reference, the Raynox DCR-150 is +4.8dpt and the DCR-250 is +8dpt.

The close-up attachment lens diopter selects the working distance, while the focal length of the host lens determines magnification. Here are focusing distances in inches and metric:

+1 >> 20-38" (500-950mm)
+2 >> 13-20" (330-500mm)
+3 >> 10-13" (250-330mm)
+4 >> 8--10" (205-250mm)
+5 >> 6.5-8" (165-205mm)
+6 >> 6-6.5" (153-165mm)
+8 >> 5" ---- (127mm)
+10 > 4" ---- (102mm)

Simple uncorrected meniscus strap-ons show aberrations, especially at the image edges, that you might not like -- no edge-to-edge flatfield sharpness, nope! But they can be OK for shooting rounded stuff head-on. And a +1dpt strap-on can turn a cheap slow 18-55 kit.lens into a decent portrait lens with thin DOF. These only cost a few bucks per set and are worth playing with, and FUN!

I mentioned adapters made by Raynox. These screw into supplied clip-on mounts that fit lenses from all makers on all cameras, as long as the host lens' front diameter is 52-68mm. The spring-loaded Raynox clip *can* be forced onto a 49mm-diameter lens, but I prefer to use a cheap 49-43mm step-down ring.

Most macro work eats light. Close-up adapters don't, and are good for dimmer shooting situations. Meanwhile, meniscus strap-ons can do other things, and other optical strap-ons and filters exist. Stay tuned for the article on those. [I'll link it here after I write it, soon...]

PS: Member PaleoPete posted his binocular lens macro rig. From his description that its working distance is about 5in, I can guess that the lens is about a +8dpt, like a Raynox DCR-250. Some of you experimenters with extra binocs lying about can try this CHEAP MACRO trick, eh?
___________________________________
TELECONVERTERS: Using teleconverters, you add glass between the lens and the camera. Ordinary TC's increase focal length (and f-stop) while keeping the same working distance, effectively increasing magnification. Macro-focusing TCs let you work closer and with more magnification. TCs magnify whatever problems the host lens may have. All TC's reduce the light reaching the camera. AF TC's are rare and expensive; A-types are less so; both of these are suitable with flash. I have some TCs. I don't use them; that's all I have to say about them.

PRO: Simple.
CON: Not the cleanest; eats light; magnifies lens problems.

LENS REVERSAL: Many macro shooters work with a reversed prime lens -- but reversal just brings you close to your subject. (Working distance is about 45mm with Pentax-type prime lenses.) You still need some extension to gain magnification. A lens with a deep front inset effectively has built-in extension; others may need an added tube. Lens-reversal is cheap, easy, and clean. Just about ANY lens can be reversed. That's how I recycle some non-Pentax lenses that I would otherwise not use. Or I can use a Pentax lens normally, for non-macro work, then flip it around to get real close.

You can reverse a zoom. DA lenses lack aperture rings; they won't do. But any FA or F or MF zoom can be reversed, with a working distance somewhere around 1.3-2x the focal length. Even a lousy zoom, reversed, can give good results. I do this with the A35-80, arguably the worst lens Pentax ever sold. At 35mm I get 1:1 magnification at about 5cm distance; at 80mm I get 1:2 magnification at about 15cm, and it will focus past infinity. A real macro-zoom! NOTE: Lenses labeled as MACRO-ZOOM, ain't macro. They rarely go beyond 1:5 magnification. But MACRO uses less ink than CLOSE-FOCUS so that's how lenses are labeled. Go figure...

PRO: Cheap and easy; flatfield sharpness.
CON: Close working distance; no auto control.

REVERSE-STACKING: You can reverse-stack lenses and can gain great magnification. Mount a longer PRIMARY lens on the camera; then use a male-male thread-reversal ring, then screw a shorter SECONDARY prime on that. (If you're really cheap, just use gaffer's tape to hold the lenses nose-to-nose.) Magnification is the ratio of the Primary:Secondary focal lengths. A 35mm secondary stacked onto a 105mm primary gives 105:35= 3:1 magnification. A 25mm stacked onto a 200mm gives 8:1, which gets into MICRO-photography territory.

The Primary can be a zoom, although I prefer primes. The Secondary should be a manual prime with an aperture ring. Use the Secondary's aperture ring to control exposure, and leave the Primary wide open. Stopping-down the primary can cause vignetting. You want the front objectives to be fairly close together; lenses with deep insets can cause vignetting. Space between the lenses will increase magnification VERY slightly.

Reversing or stacking primes ALWAYS puts you at that same close working distance of about 45mm. That is good for studio work; not so good for the field. Be sure to use a hood with any reversed lens, to reduce flare. HINT: Macro tube sections work well as hoods.

PRO: Easy to achieve great magnification; flatfield sharpness.
CON: Close working distance; no auto control; eats light.

CHEAP EXTENSION: I love simple cheap extension (tubes and/or bellows). You can put a prime or a zoom on extension for close and macro work; I prefer primes. An Industar-50/3.5 on 50mm of cheap M42 tubes with a safe cheap flanged M42-PK adapter puts you at 1:1 for a pittance. For not much more, is my favorite: cheap bellows and tubes mounting cheap enlarger lenses, copy lenses, other lenses without focusing mechanisms of their own -- non-camera lenses. You can shove just about any optical material into a bellows!

Many many types of tubes and bellows exist; I can't discuss them all here. I prefer cheap simple ones, and not only for macro work. Both PK and M42 tube sections can be used as adapters for weird lenses -- just glue a tube section to the lens body. Tube sets are dirt cheap, often well under US$10 shipped for 50mm of extension in 3 modular sections. I have about 6 sets of each and I need more. M42 bellows are cheap, PK bellows are a bit more. Bellows for other mounts can often be easily adapted to PK -- just replace the mount hardware with a cheap flanged M42-PK adapter.

PRO: Cheap; clean; flexible usage.
CON: No auto control; eats light.
___________________________________

SIDEBAR: ENLARGER LENSES ETC

I love cheap enlarger lenses! EL's have edge-to-edge flatfield sharpness; they need hoods to avoid flare; they are FUN! A small bellows, some cheap macro tubes, and a handful of EL's will take you far. They also give me a great feeling of freedom. I'm not limited by whatever lens designers thought was A Good Idea.

On my K20D or K1000 I use a 50mm EL for close studio work; 75mm for slightly further macro work, and portraits; 90-110mm for portraits, and short-tele and moderate macro work; and 140-200mm for even more distance. I buy such EL's for under US$10 usually, sometimes four for a dime, maybe as much as US$20 for a Leitz or Nikkor. Premium brands can get expensive but the cheap guys work well too.

EL's have aperture rings, often with the numbers printed upside-down. Other lenses non-camera lenses can be put on extension: projector, copy, xray, process, other specialty glass. These typically DON'T have aperture rings. They can be used wide-open, or you can improvise baffles or Waterhouse stops for greater sharpness. Reversing an EL or other non-camera lens may increase sharpness also. EL and other non-camera lenses usually aren't designed for flare resistance, so be sure to use a hood.

Many European and some Japanese EL's have a 39mm thread, the same as M39 and L39 /LTM (Leica thread-mount) lenses. Some Japanese EL's have a 42mm thread, same as M42. Many USA EL's have inch-based or various non-standard threads. Some non-camera lenses have NO threads and must be taped or otherwise secured into adapters. Cheap adapter: a one-buck plastic body cap with a hole cut in it!

PRO: Cheap; EL's have flatfield sharpness.
CON: EL's rapidly become addictive!!
___________________________________
My recommendations: If you have the money and want a sharp versatile lens, get a new AF macro. (I'd love to crawl in the mud with a DFA 100/2.8 WR!) If you're real cheap and fairly lazy, get a set of meniscus close-up adapters; if not quite so cheap, get a Raynox. If you don't mind working real close, try lens reversal and stacking. If you want cheap clean basic macro, get a set of macro tubes or de-glass an A-type TC. If you want to experiment cheaply, get bellows and tubes and enlarger lenses. If 10x isn't enough magnification, get a microscope!

And there you have it -- the basics of Cheap Macro. I didn't say much about 'dedicated' camera macro lenses nor AF TC's because they ain't cheap! REAL cheapskates don't even buy macro tubes -- they get PVC pipe from hardware stores, and improvise. Online searches will reveal macro setups made from Pringles potato-chip cans. How cheap can YOU go? And I'm not discussing technique because enough is enough. I'll let the macro pros tell us how they do what they do, eh?

BIBLIOGRAPHY (actual books!)
FIELD PHOTOGRAPHY by Alfred Blaker (Freeman) ***
CLOSEUPS IN NATURE by John Shaw (AmPhoto)
CLOSE-UP PHOTOGRAPHY by William J. Owens (Petersen)
CLOSE-UP AND MACRO PHOTOGRAPHY by Adrian Davies (Focal)
UNDERSTANDING CLOSE-UP PHOTOGRAPHY by Bryan Peterson (AmPhoto)

Thanks to members jolepp, yeatzee, jatrax, abacus07, pacerr, GeneV, PaleoPete for suggestions. The fixes are in! The discussion thread for the draft version of this is here [ https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/152178-draft-a...eap-macro.html ] in case you want to read the comments.

UPDATE: This draft is now dead. The official 'live' version is now here [ https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-lens-articles/152336-cheap-macro-b...lose-work.html ] and all further comments should go there. Thanks for everyone's help!!
Forum: Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 06-12-2011, 02:05 PM  
Pentax and General DSLR Accessory Reviews
Posted By SlickYamaha
Replies: 16
Views: 5,608
Hello all. If you dont know me, Im Jay. I was the person who orchestrated the Pentax shirts. I also have a YouTube site that I run where I review various items in DSLR Photography. I have made reviews for such products as Shutter Releases, Bags, Backpacks, Holsters, Straps, Screen Protectors, Tripods, and many many more.
After speaking with Adam (and getting his permission) I wanted to start a thread that I could use to bring some of these reviews to Pentax Forums. I see alot of people ask about these products, and wanted to be able to help as much as possible.
I do not get paid for these reviews, nor do I advertise on YouTube. So this is not something I am using to advertise. I dont sell anything, I just want to share some hands on time with these items.

Please be aware, I am NOT a professional photographer. I do not know every in and out, and I probably have more to learn about photography than most of the people watching these videos. I just hope that the little bit of insight I offer may help someone else make an educated purchase.

I will start off with the vidoes I currently have, and will add more as I add them to my YouTube Channel. Please be aware, This will contain a TON of videos, but I think it will be the best way to CLEANLY post all of them. Rather than have a thread for each one.

So please watch a few, leave your comments, and if you want, check out my channel and become a subscriber.

Thanks everyone!

Reviews posted so far:

-FotoDiox Ezlite portable Studio
-FotoDiox Portable Studio
-Dolica Portable Studio
-Think Tank Retrospective 30
-Dolica DK20 DSLR Bag
-Fotodiox Pro Co worker
-FotoDiox Trigmaster wireless flash and shutter system
-Fotodiox Wired Shutter Release
-GGS LCD viewfinder
-Hoodman Raw Steel 8GB SDHC Card
-Hoodman Hoodmag 3.0
-Hoodman Hoodloupe 3.0
-CarrySpeed CS1 MKII
-Think Tank Steroid Speed Belt and Skin Set
-Honl Photo Flash Accessories
-Cactus V5 Wireless flash system
-Cotton Carrier System
-Think Tank Retrospective 10
-Think Tank Urban Disguise
-Think Tank Digital Holster
-Think Tank Lightning fast and R U Thirsty
-Think Tank Airport Antidote 2.0
-Think Tank ShapeShifter
-Think Tank Streetwalker
-Tamrac Expedition 3
-Tamrac ZipShot
-Think Tank Speed Freak
-Think Tank Sling O Matic 10
-AA AAA Battery packs
-Dolica 67" Monopod
-GGS Screen Protector
-Dolica 62" Tripod
-Black Rapid DR1
-Black Rapid RS5
-Opteka Hand strap
-Targus Tripod
-Carry speed CS1
-CaseCrown Sling Bag
-Amazon Basics DSLR Bag

















You Tube



















You Tube



















You Tube



















You Tube



















You Tube



















You Tube



















You Tube



















You Tube



















You Tube



















You Tube



















You Tube



















You Tube



















You Tube



















You Tube



















You Tube



















You Tube



















You Tube



















You Tube



















You Tube



















You Tube



















You Tube



















You Tube



















You Tube



















You Tube



















You Tube



















You Tube



















You Tube



















You Tube



















You Tube



















You Tube



















You Tube



















You Tube



















You Tube



















You Tube



















You Tube



















You Tube



















You Tube



















You Tube



















You Tube



Forum: Pentax Q 07-12-2011, 03:31 AM  
Pentax Q in the Flesh
Posted By Christine Tham
Replies: 1,310
Views: 223,320
The problem is you are confusing between bokeh and DOF, and expressing a bokeh requirement ("soft blurry backgrounds") as a DOF requirement.

bokeh and DOF are different concepts. DOF is about how much a picture is in focus vs out of focus. bokeh is the quality of the out of focus rendition.

It is possible for a lens with good bokeh at f8 to give a much "nicer" picture than a lens with poor bokeh at f4 or even f2.

The picture you linked to could potentially have been rendered by a lens at f8 - it all depends on the the relative distance between photographer and subject, and how well the lens render bokeh. Some lenses will "exaggerate" bokeh, some play it down - it depends on the lens design.

So I am not willing to assume that the Q will not be able to render bokeh well - it all depends on the lens design and Pentax had 5 years to play with the design.

As for the Q being a "high DOF" camera - with all due respect I would caution against making naive assumptions based on sensor size which a few posters seem to be doing.

As I've mentioned before, DOF depends on the circle of confusion (CoC), not sensor size. CoC is a subjective measure, not objective, and depends on many things.

A lot of DOF calculators on the Internet assume CoC = d/1730 (the Zeiss formula) but this formula is quite naive. The CoC actually depends on interpixel spacing and the effective width of each pixel - Pentax has not yet given us this information so we don't know whether the Zeiss formula is a good approximation or not.

Secondly, some people are using a full frame DSLR as a frame of reference (CoC=0.025). However, I would argue a 35mm film camera is a better frame of reference (typical CoC = 0.030-0.035)

So, even if we assume the Zeiss formula is applicable to the Q (and I have reasons to suspect it doesn't) the Q with the standard prime is not equivalent to a full frame standard prime at f11, but more like f8, and potentially lower.

And there is every possibility Pentax may have tweaked the Q lens design for shallower DOF, so it's quite possible the "equivalency" is f4-f8.

I typically shoot on my K-5 with FA43 at f4-f8, so it's entirely possible that the Q will be roughly equivalent from a DOF perspective.

Note - this is all speculation on my part, but it's based on reasonable assumptions, unlike some of the rampant speculation by armchair experts on this forum.

The real test is when we get to play with a real camera and take real pictures. Until then, I maintain - speculation about the image quality and DOF of the Q is just speculation.
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 07-08-2011, 08:26 PM  
Why I don't like the "if you want a full-frame camera, switch to Canikon" argument.
Posted By Winder
Replies: 362
Views: 39,548
People want FF because they think that all of the legacy K-mount glass is going to work great on a FF Pentax. I think people are going to be disappointed in the results of of older glass on a new 36MP Sensor from Sony. Pentax would need 3 years to redevelop glass and modernize the designs. Before we see Pentax roll out a FF body we will see lenses like the 28-75 and 80-200 get redesigned and released. HD Video is going to kill screw dive. I don't think that Pentax will continue screw drive in a FF body. The FF body might actually be mirror-less.

Pentax can make a lot more money by re-using the K-7/K-5 in the K-5 replacement (K-5 Super?) and dropping in a Sony 24MP sensor and meet (exceed) the needs of 98% of its user base.

How much does Pentax need to sell a FF body for in order to justify the net cost of a new body and lenses? Pentax does not sell the volume of Nikon.Canon or have its own sensor fab like Canon/Sony. I think Pentax would have a hard time making money with a FF for less than $2,800. Marketing cost, Customer Service expectations, Quality Control all become more important and I don't think Pentax has those in place.

How much are people willing to pay for a FF Pentax body? If people want a sub-$2,000.00 Pentax FF what does that do to the price of the K-5 line? IF Pentax is barely making money with a $2,000 FF and that ends up driving down the price of its own APS-C bodies (lower margins) then they would be making a mistake.

I would love to see a Pentax body..... I would love to see some updated high quality glass even more.

I would take an APS-C body with a Sony sensor with a much improved AF system and a larger (1.15x) OVF and 2 SD card slots first. Fast (F/1.4) glass and the correct focal length can give you razor thin DoF with an APS-C. Give me an updated 50mm f/1.2 with a true ring AF motor. I'll go for fast, high quality glass over a FF body given the current level of performance of APS-C sensors.

A few weeks back I ran into a guy with a Canon 7D and a super-zoom while using my Canon 5D and K-7. He started talking about how he wanted thinner DoF and was going to upgrade to a FF. I really just wanted to slap him. If he is too cheap to buy fast glass then he is too cheap to buy a FF body. If he had fast glass and knew how to use it he would find that APS-C will do 90% (probably more) of what he needs.

The majority of the major posters on this forum represent a very small percentage of the Pentax customer base.
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II 07-07-2011, 04:30 AM  
Price Matching in Aussie
Posted By Verglace
Replies: 203
Views: 23,948
Australia is a small market with a relatively high minimum wage, plenty of taxes and above average consumer laws (require more for the stores in terms of warranty and guarantee). This all adds up to higher prices.

Australia is also a globalised country, what this means is that the people in Australia can purchase stuff from overseas. Parallel importing is not illegal. So Australians have the right to choose to buy overseas. Obviously by doing this you lose the benefits of buying locally.

We have people complaining that Australian prices are high despite overseas prices. There is nothing stopping them from buying overseas... well, there is one, the benefits of buying locally. What does this mean? This means that buying locally provides better value (value in terms of benefits received rather than in terms of price). This increase in value in turn means that there should also be an increase in price (economically speaking).

So what can we do about it? We can choose to purchase overseas and force the retailers to sell at a lower price because they will see how much customers they are losing. This is ofcourse a double edged sword, there is a possibility that the retailers are already selling items for they best price they canand are forced to close shop, thus we as customers may lose the option to choose to purchase locally entirely. Or it could also go the otherway and the retailers lower the prices because they were just profiteering.

What can YOU do about it? Choose what is right, if you think they are profiteering purchase overseas, if you honestly believe that the price they set is the best they can set it to while still earning a profit (ie, while still having a reason to sell the items -- whats the point of selling things just to break even, you may as well not sell it at all if the result will be the same... 0 profit), then purchase locally.

Australia is a free market economy. Do what you think is right and the market as a whole will decide the outcome.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 07-04-2011, 10:08 AM  
So what's the second 2011 Pentax mirrorless?
Posted By ogl
Replies: 133
Views: 24,812
I know that flange focal distance of K mount is rather long: 45.46 mm.

Anyway...

*ist D was 129 x 95 x 60 mm mm and it's very small camera.
*ist DS was 125 x 93 x 66 mm...

The smallest DSLR with SR is K-x:
123 x 92 x 68 mm

GXR body is 113.9 mm x 70.2 mm (WxH).
The thickness of part for module is very thin.


Camera body (excluding battery, memory card, neck strap, and connector cap): 160 g. The module weight could be very light too.

The thickness of module could be not above 55 mm. IMO.
For example, NX100 is 120 x 71 x 35 mm.
GXRII could be made a bit smaller than now. But...Anyway.
113*70*55 mm is smaller than any Pentax DSLR ever made. Am I wrong?

As for SR - I don't see problem to develop new compact version of SR especially for GXR module.

I think it's real to add simple WR to GXRII body and to K-mount module.


For tiny size Pentax made Q system.:):)
Forum: Pentax Q 06-27-2011, 05:42 AM  
Pentax Q in the Flesh
Posted By eddie1960
Replies: 1,310
Views: 223,320
Why don't you just stop commenting. you haven't added anything to the debate, you haven't seen an image from a production sample, and the camera was obviously not targeted at you. unless you a a market research expert with the data at hand on the whole camera market not just your tiny part of it you are concerned with you are not qualified to make useless blanket statements like this. there is a whole world out there beyond the forum ogl. I've shown this to a number of friends photographers and general public alike. almost universally they expressed interest in it. even a few of the pro photographers i know thought it could be a fun camera to own.
there are times i find this forum really disheartening, and every time a new camera of any sort is released and people spend their time bashing it is the most frequent.
I for one admire HOYA/Pentax for putting something out there that is different and opens a potentially new market. It may well turn out not to be a camera i (or many here) have use for, but I would be very surprised if they don't sell some pretty serious numbers in the asian market, and if the street price does indeed drop i bet they sell a few in North America as well
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 06-25-2011, 08:18 PM  
Illegal to print images which are not yours?
Posted By magkelly
Replies: 55
Views: 24,402
I tend to think that there's a big difference between printing a lousy quality pic off the internet and pinning it up on the cork board for a few months and buying a larger sized excellent quality print for display on a wall in a frame. The one I don't care much about. The second is something I would actually buy. Personally I don't think web pics are nice enough to display on anything but a quick cork board collage or a computer desktop and they come and go anyway unlike the really nice art photos that I've purchased and spent money on framing.

People are going to post their personal photos on Facebook the moment they get one home. All they need is a scanner, and I think it's illogical not to expect that. If they're nice they'll credit the photographer but to expect them to ask permission and pay to do that just isn't very practical. They have that print. In their minds they now have that image and they can do anything they want with it except maybe make a wall sized print to display above the fireplace. At that point they might still need the photographer who took the shot, but otherwise, probably not.

Times are changing and people are too. No, it's not fair and it's not necessarily nice, but people are becoming used to doing whatever they want with photos that they pay you to take, and that's the way they see it. In their minds they're hiring you to take the shots, not to make tons of prints necessarily. They expect you to give them a DVD with those shots on them so they can do whatever they want. No, it's not the old way of doing business, and it's not as lucrative for the photographer, but in an age where every other household is gaining a DSLR that is how it's going to be.

Bottom line it comes down to how badly do you want to work as a photographer? That's the question I've asked myself and the answer is I want to work as one even if it means I don't make prints and I just hand over a DVD of cropped and corrected pics when I am done. Fact is some of these people don't need me to shoot for them, not in an age where everyone knows a wanna be photographer with a DSLR in hand. Should I still insist upon handling all prints only to lose out on the job completely?

I will be happy to get prints made for my clients if they still want them but I am not counting on it being a major source of income. I just don't think it's a practical way to view things anymore. Not when so many households have a computer, a scanner/printer, and basic digital imaging software. I figure if I want to work at all? I'd better consider being a bit more flexible than the older photographer near here who just shut down his studio for lack of business. That model of business clearly wasn't working anymore for him. I know that I need to do it differently or I'll just end up doing the same.

As for your customers being responsible for buying your equipment that's not legit in my opinion. Buying new equipment is part of any business and you always have to budget for that no matter how you make your money. If you can't get the money for that doing prints then you need to find another business model that allows you to pay your bills, not just expect the customer to change their ways to accommodate you. You can't depend upon your customer base to do that. Your business has to be all about pleasing them if you want to survive.

I ran two tourist dependent stores in the beginning of the bad slump in the economy that started after 9-11. For months, years the people stayed away and the sales tanked because the owners had their tourist dependent business model and wouldn't budge on anything. I did everything but stand on my head naked outside the shop to encourage the few tourists that were left to come but in the end it wasn't enough and they wouldn't let us court the locals at all.

It was stupid because doing what we were doing we could have replaced a lot of our business with locals, but no, that just wasn't their way. By the time they finally figured out their business just wasn't going to come back the way they wanted, from the tourists, it was too late and eventually those stores were closed, all of us lost our jobs, and the owners lost a lot of money.

Just because something has always been done a certain way doesn't mean it's the best way anymore. There was a time when many pro photographers and photo shops scoffed at the very idea that almost everyone would one day be using digital cameras instead of film ones, that 85% of a photo shops business would not be coming from selling film and prints but from selling pocket digital cameras and DSLR's. Now, many of those people who scoffed? They're out of business and very few major camera brands are still making film cameras, film and/or hocking prints. The stores and businesses that survived they got the picture. They went to accommodate the new way of taking pics. Yeah, some stores still sell film, and film cameras when they can get new ones, but a lot more sell DSLR's, pocket digi cams and loads of memory cards and if they sell prints at all it's usually via a print your own computer system.

I don't want to depend upon a business model that's older than I am. Not unless it's still going to work. Trying to force people to do what you want, getting cranky when you can't do things your way? Calling them thieves because they want more control over their images than you'd like? From what I am seeing that's only going to lead to a very empty bank account in the end.

MHO, sorry for the long ramble but I really feel strongly about this. I see the debate about who owns the right to print an image as a really big stumbling block to running a practical business sometimes. I mean there's a legitimate issue of ownership rights and then there's being so rigid about print rights that it scares away the customers too. It's a hard balance but I do think we really have to find it if pro photography is to survive at all.
Search took 0.00 seconds | Showing results 1 to 21 of 21

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:51 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top