|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
04-29-2016, 07:11 AM
|
| |
I was shooting these guys again a week ago. It was my first time out on a paid gig to shoot action sports with 85mm manual focus lens in the kit - turned out surprisingly well. It paid off to pre-focus and make note of focus ring position to different marks down the field, then just anticipate the action entering a pre-set focus and shoot burst through it. I figured I'd not bet on the catch-in focus with f/1.4. Not sure I'm taking a MF lens with me again, but an AF 85mm f/1.4 goes to the shopping list for sure. Pretty nice DOF in the 85/1.4 shots I managed to focus properly - about 20-30 % of them. I had 3 bodies total, 85mm (which was MF), 70-200mm, and a 300mm. And learning from past experiences, this time I used the Sigma 70-200mm HSM II between f/3.2 and 3.5, which resulted in less smudgy mess than at f/2.8 - virtually none discarded due to it performing like the bottom of a half empty bottle of warm beer.
K-5 II with Samyang 85mm f/1.4:
K-S2 with DA*300mm f/4:
I ain't even mad the Sigma 70-200 HSM II focuses mid burst where the hell ever it wants to, for no particular reason whatsoever. It's still a good shot, and the one before and the next one are both sharp.. Okay I'm a little mad. But not much. K-3 with Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM II:
K-3 with Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 HSM II:
K-S2 with DA*300mm f/4:
Show of good sportsmanship from the winning team, K-S2 with DA*300:
Total of nearly 350 pics to the client, who seemed happy.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
04-17-2015, 10:24 AM
|
| |
I think it'd be the more humane way...
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
04-13-2015, 08:29 PM
|
| |
Quite a lot of PP. I shot all with TAv, auto ISO 100-3200, 1/1600-2000s, f/3.5-4, -0.7 EV. RAW to Lightroom, there quite a bit of fine tuning. WB is set to a slightly higher than it should be to give the warm atmosphere, added quite a bit of contrast, exposure +0,2-1,5, and a lot of shadows back to view. Sharpening 100 with mask 80, and a bit of noise reduction and vignetting. And of course everything's cropped to a 16:9 ratio.
Here's a 100 % crop of the PP, with the exception of the non-processed side cropped, and applied the same lens adjustment to match the distortion.
Pixel peep the full size image here (about 8 MB).
Edit: the slight difference in apparent brightness between that full size and this full hd size posted earlier is the post resize sharpening at export from LR, which I naturally skipped exporting them full size, and not sharpening in PS when exporting...
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
04-12-2015, 01:04 AM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
04-11-2015, 02:10 PM
|
| |
I think I've found a new favorite "sport", something called buhurt.
Yes, it's exactly what it looks like - medieval re-enactment + UFC. That's right, full contact with swords, shields, and a lot of punching in the face. No it's not insane, it's way beyond that, and it's apparently very popular. Having witnessed an event, I can totally understand why.
Shot with K-3 + 70-200 HSM II. Had another K-5 with 16-50 but the action was too violent to be on the rails - or the front row for that matter. Moved up to the top row after a knight flew through the fence, to protect the gear (and my health as a bonus).
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
02-22-2015, 07:28 AM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
08-18-2014, 09:22 PM
|
| |
Thank you rawr for the insight, you're right. The thing I wanted to achieve with the 2.8 was indeed the narrow separation; I felt it was crucial the knight be clearly OOF in order for the picture to not be confusing, as I'm quite the distance away (that's at 145mm, slightly cropped frame) and too much depth of field would ruin the image if it wasn't immediately clear where they are located in space in relation to each other. In the lower image I went for the same effect, but to a much closer focus point (145mm also, I think this one is the uncropped frame), so I've stopped down to maintain some depth of field. The 70-200 HSM II suffers heavily at 2.8 shooting against the light; ii looks uneasy, there are aberrations everywhere, and all in all I had to throw away most of the f/2.8 frames. Stopped down even just a bit, things improve dramatically.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
08-18-2014, 09:37 AM
|
| |
Thanks! I changed settings a few times. I only wish the 70-200 would've pulled it through wide open; I missed a lot of shots trying to shoot f/2.8. Next time I won't go below f/4 with the 70-200 HSM II. Sad thing is, I already knew that I probably shouldn't unless the lack of light demands it, which it certainly didn't yesterday. I was at 1/1250-1/2000 most of the time.
The K-3 burst mode saved the day in the end.
I ain't even mad it looks as it does - the sword is right where it should (at f/2.8 above).
And here I'm in completely impossible angle to capture the action, yet the K-3 managed to slip a frame where there's a whole story there nonetheless. This must be one of my favorites from the shoot (at f/3.5 below).
 |
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
08-17-2014, 10:29 AM
|
| |
It was this time of the year again. Took a 70-200 HSM II instead of the DA*300 I had last year. Mixed results, some good ones thanks to the shorter focal length, but a lot of missed frames - and I mean a lot. This is one of the good ones.
Oh, and positioned straight against the sun for a cool effect. Did not disappoint.
Edit: another one
Edit edit edit: j***** f**** c*****, comparing the DA*300 rendered images on a K-5 and these 70-200 pics at K-3, the conclusion must be that DA*300 consists of magic powder. I'll take that one again next year.
Edit: Well they didn't turn out all bad. Full set of 75 pics: https://www.flickr.com/photos/jiimaa/sets/72157646566791925/ |
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
06-14-2014, 01:32 AM
|
| |
Oh, you're right. I'm nothing of the sort - I'm doing it for fun, I've got all the time I need, and the game isn't being covered by anyone I think, me the least. :) Also I need the postprocessing to make them not suck. That's one big difference between me and a pro also.
Edit: in fact, one of the reasons I'm sticking with Pentax is I'm not losing hair over noise, like a Nikon shooter would... - i'll just let it noise, it's not that bad. :P
These pics have no extra noise reduction added.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
06-14-2014, 01:04 AM
|
| |
Thanks! Yes that's the game. The red team won 0-1.
No way these are straight out of camera. Who'd show pics straight out of camera. These are shot raw, processed in LR, and I've lately used a MIDI panel to do the adjustments 'blind' to get to a new (hopefully better) look. There's a ton of little adjustments, but most strongly added contrast, vibrance, and shadows, if I recall correctly.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
06-13-2014, 11:19 PM
|
| |
I went out to a soccer game for the first time ever. K-3 & DA*300
I ain't even mad 'we' lost - that wedgie is a good one. :D Well played by the enemy.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
03-02-2014, 11:13 AM
|
| |
Does DA 18-55 WR count as macro lens if I put extension tubes on it...
  |
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
02-15-2014, 12:58 AM
|
| |
I have an USB 3.0 Lexar reader, on an USB 3.0 card, on a Mac Pro, and my Extreme Pro 16 GB seems to perform worse than your 64.
I tested with diglloyd disktester fill-volume.
Still, I have the K-5II and I think your conclusion is right - the K-5 is such a snail in writing to card, I see no difference between these two cards when shooting. As both cards are very close to each other in read speed when the images are dumped to the computer, in practice there is no difference at all between the Ultimate and Extreme Pro cards when using them with K-5, although the Extreme Pro performs noticeably better in write, and slightly better in read, when tested on a setup fast enough for the card to be the slowest component. The K-5's write is way, way less than the worst performer of these two cards. The Transcend used here is not the gray ultra, but the red ultimate (rated 90 MB/s / 45 MB/s) version, and the SanDisk is the gold top extreme pro (95/90) version.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
01-27-2014, 04:08 AM
|
| |
I'd buy that
Edit: because it'd be perfect for all portraiture, with humans and animals alike. Think of a big shot sports game for example. Anyone can take a perfect shot of players in the air, over the end zone, hugging the ball while slipping through defender's fingers with force. But. With only the K-9 you can get them all to look straight into the camera. That pulitzer over the fireplace will tender your sore feelings, when they never let you into the stadium again.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
01-27-2014, 04:04 AM
|
| |
Oddly enough the first thing I thought of, when I held the K-3, was that yeah, they really skipped two full numbers, from a 5 to a 3, and there is no K-4. Not only was I slightly disappointed of this to be the case still in the year 2013, but that also lead me to the disappointing conclusion that there almost certainly will never be a K-9 either. That would have been too magnificent with all the what's up dogs.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
01-27-2014, 03:46 AM
|
| |
Jesus, I don't think I've ever waited a lens like I'm waiting for the 18-35 1.8. What unreal images at 18mm f/1.8. Where was it again I can go ask Sigma to please consider dropping what ever it is they're doing instead of bringing this to K mount, and do this first, then shut up and take my money.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
01-26-2014, 01:15 AM
|
| |
Wouldn't that be the alignment mark (orange dot), also indicated by the white line. A ring seal would leave a different type of reflection (not a dot, but a line instead), not to mention the seal, being closer to outer edge of the mount, would not be in the family of angles to reflect there. If there was the WR type red seal, you would see it either (a) not at all, as it's obscured from this angle, or (b) as a thin red rim on the bottom of the body - in any case, not reflected on the side of the metal mount.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
01-15-2014, 10:21 AM
|
| |
Problem is you expect to see something that is not the result of your setup.
f/2 -> thin DOF
f/22 -> wide DOF
still keep in mind that:
focus close -> thin DOF
focus far -> wide DOF
you're just too close at 0,5 meters to see to infinity, since the background is far away in relation to you and your focus point - so the DOF is thin and that's that.
pick the tripod+camera up, move it 10 steps back, focus carefully again to the bottle, and see if f/22 does something then.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
01-08-2014, 02:25 PM
|
| |
Well, are you within bicycle distance of the birds, or do you really need that car you have outside.
I'd personally like the sigma but the birds are too far away.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
12-27-2013, 12:47 PM
|
| |
The answer is stop hyperventilating about high ISO. There's nothing wrong in going 3200 or more if you like, it's all in your head.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
12-26-2013, 10:43 AM
|
| |
Ooh a long reply. I like long replies, they are often really good or go way over someone's head. Norm's in this case I guess. I think you misunderstood the texts you quoted, but I like how you first disowned the effect, yet proceeded (managed, even) to construct ad hominem argument out of it nonetheless, cleverly dismissing any line of interpretation that didn't quite fit in your vision of what you thought I said.
In short,
 Quote: Right , because [...] ? No, and... no. The point was not followed through by you, otherwise you would've seen it & emphasized the gap between the votes & owners of K-3. To re-word that for you, if they did that invalidation of "self" votes, most of the other brands' votes would disappear, and K-3 would lead by more significant gap to others. Because there are people who go like this: Ooh I see a vote is going on -> hey that's the one I have -> vote it. The numbers in the post before my last post in this thread (especially the %'s) give out hint of the amounts: K-3 leads the pack with 400 % votes to owners. That means, by those numbers, for every 1 owner, 3 non-owners voted it. The key is in the relation of these numbers: Things are not at all so good with the others. Their % of votes to owners are less, implying owners voting their own cameras. Invalidating those, K-3 would destroy the competition.
I don't even know how you managed to turn it around like you did, but I like it for the sheer difficulty of not getting it.
OK off the top of your head say which points make the K-50 and K-500 both viable competitors for a title of Best DSLR Of 2013. Don't think. Just lay it out. They're the best of the best of the best, and not only that, they're the cherry on top of the icing on the very top layer of the cake. Why. What justifies their existence on this very short list of the very best.
Nothing at all. Why? Because K-3 in eclipses anything and everything else in Pentaxiarnia.
The situation is different in Nikoviet Union and Canon County. On one of them the thing is close to what it'd be for Pentaxiarnia if we had the FF last year, and on the list would be the 2nd iteration of that, then an LX-D FF or something similar, on top of the K-3. What would that have done -> spread the votes between the FF II, the K-3 and the LX-D. See it? There's multiple segment good competitors for the title of said cherry on the top. Pentax has three on the list, of which only one is a real competitor. The vote counts provide all the evidence you want for it. Apart from a few complicated thought processes (considering in great detail the segments and values - which sorry but not many are willing or able to do), a couple misclicks or protest votes, they're nowhere near winning the thing. It all funnels the Pentax attention to the K-3. It sort of establishes the Pentax as equal to Nikon and Canon in terms that there are three options on the list, but only one of them is really an option to actually win this thing.
I'll just ignore what else you said because I frankly can't follow your line of reasoning, and keep track of any groups, and don't know what the first group was I'm supposed to belong to. Can we make a new group where what I said was of neutral tone not intended to construct any type of pro-Pentax or anti-Pentax systems like you seem to believe, and put me in that group of those who don't a rat's ass about what it is you actually do (or here own/shoot/vote), but how. As for the saying "really" doesn't do something, I'm not sure what word your lot uses when the argument should apply to practice only, not theoretical possibilities of existence. Like your head seems to have worked when you read the message I wrote, but not really. That 'really' there doesn't mean it did not actually work, only in practice the effectiveness of it seemed to be, how should I put that, somehow hasty in nature, compared to an optimal or careful execution and analysis of things.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
12-26-2013, 05:38 AM
|
| |
Preventing fanboyism to a degree would of course be DPReview dismissing the votes for own camera or brand, just counting the ones who have voted their "not own" model or brand, ending up with votes of which is best, but not the one I use.
Also, the poll is somewhat skewed in favor of Pentax, because there is really just one Pentax option for the "best DSLR" in the list - come on, the other two Pentax models don't really belong to the list, funneling the Pentax votes to just one model, while the other brands (except the last one) have multiple valid options causing spread, giving Pentax an advantage.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
12-26-2013, 05:13 AM
|
| |
I think this man is correct; the apparent sharpness closely relates to contrast in edge details (that's what "sharpening" does -> increases contrast at edges, that's why overdoing it makes things halo). Shooting flash head on generates highlights, causing a ton of contrast, making it appear sharp. The first picture's problems are camera vibrating or the dog breathing, and dull light -> little contrast. Is the dog alive? That might explain why it doesn't stay dead still even when told to do so.
To fix this, move to a bright place or bounce flash and/or use diffusers and whatnot light modifiers to control amount of light first at the location in general and second engulfing the subject, to enable you to shoot faster shutter speeds (freezes the subject motion), then apply sharpening in post if still not sharp enough, or alternatively start liking the head on flash zombie look shots. Also RAW + way higher ISO than 400 ought to do something differently.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Camera and Field Accessories
12-23-2013, 01:46 PM
|
| |
Oh, right you are; that did not cross my mind. I'm with K-5 II so I'm still very depending on the PCIe card + Lexar thing to get the pics fast. Come to think of it, I probably will retain the workflow even after I eventually get the K-3, as that'd be yet another cable to the mess to do that from the camera. And as we all know USB 2 cables at least are multidimensional in nature, meaning they don't fit in which ever way you try to insert it, then you have to rotate it only to see that now it's upside down, and you need to rotate it to the original orientation again to make it fit. Overall the 5-dimensional nature of the USB ports make the process more complicated. See example:
Reader:
1. pop card out of camera
2. insert card to lexar "lexy" luthor, the lexiest card reader out there
3. import to LR
4. pop card from the lexy
5. insert card to camera
6. format card
Cable:
1. find usb cable
2. plug to camera
3. try to plug USB cable to computer
4. rotate USB cable and try again
5. rotate USB cable to original orientation, oh now it goes in
6. import to LR
7. unplug the cable from both ends and throw it somewhere where you can "find" it
8. format card
As we can see that's 2 steps more, or up to 33 % more total steps, thus the reader is the lexiest option with regards to my nerves. Q.E.D.
|
