Liked Posts - Search Results - PentaxForums.com

The Latest

Forum

Cameras

Page 1 of 7

⟶

Last »

Showing results 1 to 25 of 154 Search: Liked Posts

Forum: Pentax Q 04-15-2012, 05:47 PM

Let's share shots with Q!
Posted By snostorm

Replies: 6,907
Views: 1,201,554

I think there's room in this thread for some examples with the Q and adapted lenses. . .All were shot in jpeg with in camera sharpening set to -4. The Screech Owl and turtle are captives, the rest are in the wild.

FA 50/1.4 at f2, handheld, PP with NR, sharpening.

D FA 100/2.8 Macro at f2.8, handheld, PP with NR, sharpening

DA 18-250 at 250mm/f6.3, handheld, PP with NR, sharpening

DA 55-300 at 300mm/f8, with a tripod, PP with NR , sharpening

FA* 300/4.5, at f4.5 with a tripod, PP with NR , sharpening, some local CA/PF correction

DA 50-200, at 200mm/f5.6, with a tripod, PP with NR , sharpening, some local CA/PF correction

Tamron SP 300/2.8, at f2.8, with a tripod, PP with NR , sharpening, some local CA/PF correction

I'm slowly going through my lens collection, but I've got quite a few to go. . .

Scott

Forum: Pentax Q 06-09-2013, 11:40 AM

Q+ DA 55-300 from 4.5 ft away. . .
Posted By snostorm

Replies: 9
Views: 2,507

Hi all,

I was sitting around waiting for hummingbirds with my K-5IIs, FA* 300/4.5 + F 1.7x AFA on a tripod, and had the Q + DA 55-300 with me for opportunistic handheld shots of whatever might show up in the surrounding area. I noticed a largish Jumping Spider appear on a fence post right in front of me, and backed off to the MFD of the lens (4.6ft or 1.4m) and grabbed a couple of shots since this was the closest thing to macro that I had with me. Earlier, I had grabbed a couple of shots of honey bees at the entrance to their indoor hive exhibit at the Nature Center.

These aren't great macro shots, by any means, but were relatively easy to shoot, even handheld since the critters weren't even aware that I was there. I probably should have used the pop up flash, since the angle wouldn't have been much of a problem at 4.5 ft, but didn't think of it at the time.

In the future, I plan to stick my Raynox DCR 250 in a pocket before heading off with the Q+DA55-300 to give me better macro capability, I'll also stop the lens down and use flash. . . live and learn. . .
Here are the shots:

These are much better than I had expected. NR and some significant sharpening applied in PP. Handheld with available light. Lens wide open at 300mm.

I'll include a couple of shots I got of a Red Bellied Woodpecker from about 35-40 feet, lens wide open and handheld at 300mm. These are pretty similar to what I can get with 500mm from about 12-15 feet with a K-5, and the RBWP didn't even know I was there, so they were easier to get from a subject intimidation standpoint. Also with this setup, from this kind of distance, DOF pretty much covers the entire bird while the DSLR setup would definitely have parts of the bird OOF. I probably should have backed off on the zoom a bit to get the entire bird in the frame, but I get a bit giddy having this much reach :o

Scott

Forum: Pentax Q 09-30-2012, 11:20 PM

The "reach" of the Q - images
Posted By snostorm

Replies: 1,223
Views: 252,583

While on the subject of how long one can go hand held without SR using a Q and adapted lenses. . . Also, later that Nov, I was experimenting with the DA 55-300 and DA 18-250 with the Q. The DA 55-300 fits my Tamron 80-200 f2.8 Adaptall 2's tripod ring, but the 18-250 doesn't so i had to hand hold the 18-250.

There was direct sunlight, though it was late in Nov, so it's not quite the same as in summer. . . I was leaning against a post, so there was some support.

This first shot was at 18mm for some perspective (@100mm EQ) between 30-40 feet away. . .

Then at 250mm (1383mm EQ) -- remember this is at f6.3 max aperture at 250mm so is diffraction limited -- jpeg straight OOC, and my default is to turn down in-camera sharpening to -4. Shutter speed was 1/320, so about 2 stops slower than the normal "rule of thumb" for hand held shooting (1/FL without SR)

This is the same shot after PP with my normal sharpening drill (Topaz InFocus with deconvolution sharpening and micro cotrast)

Scott

Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 10-22-2009, 08:09 PM

change file naming prefix: is it possible at all?
Posted By snostorm

Replies: 10
Views: 3,132

Hi Gian,

Advanced Renamer v2.57 is freeware and a great program.

Advanced Renamer - Quick and fast batch rename utility

Scott

Forum: Pentax Q 12-14-2012, 11:31 PM

The "reach" of the Q - images
Posted By snostorm

Replies: 1,223
Views: 252,583

Hi Larry,

Actually I have a dedicated workflow for posting since I'm downsizing more than I would normally. I normally shoot in jpeg ***, Natural, high iso NR set to low (and to "off" with DSLRs), in-camera sharpening at -4 (I don't like the way Pentax sharpening biases towards the dark side of edges -- it adds a dark outline where it should not be), and tweak the colors to what I see. This gives me close to what a converted unprocessed RAW file would in a jpeg. My primary PP is done with Topaz DeNoise and InFocus, and these plugins only work with 8 bit files, so I'm not really losing much if I get the exposure close.

I first tweak exposure and contrast if needed

Downsize to about 3/4 res (3000 pixels on the long side) and apply light NR so subsequent sharpening won't exaggerate noise much, then I apply light sharpening to accentuate finer detail so it won't be smoothed over by further downsizing.

Downsize to 1/2 res (now at 2000 pixels on the long side) I add another application of light sharpening if I see I've lost some detail, otherwise just go to the next downsizing.

Downsize to 1700 pixels on the long side, examine, and light sharpening again if needed otherwise . .

Downsize to 1300 pixels on the long side, same as before

Downsize to final 1024 on the long side, add very light sharpening and light NR if needed. I look over the final image looking for excess contrast from sharpening and go over any with the "soften" brush at 3-4% opacity just to take the edge off.

Save to a different file name (usually just add a code that shows res and general PP done) at about 200-250 KB

I downsize in steps so fewer details are lost to the interpolation algorithm and the extra steps allow me to see if I'm losing too much along the way.

I use PSPP X4 with Topaz Denoise for NR and Topaz InFocus for sharpening -- I've developed my own presets for InFocus using only deconvolution sharpening and micro contrast with no conventional sharpening

This is about as close to the original as I can get in such a low res file. It's been slowly evolving for quite a few years. . .and probably will continue to in the future. Kind of involved, especially since the Topaz plugins are relatively slow for what they do, but they're the best that I've tried so far, and I don't post that many pics. . . and I like to show the good ones off a bit. I've gotten so used to the drill, I can almost do it all with my eyes closed now.

Scott

Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 04-20-2014, 12:25 PM

Teleconverter for F* 300 4.5
Posted By snostorm

Replies: 10
Views: 1,974

Hi noelpolar,

First congrats on obtaining a great lens!! I chose the FA* 300/4.5 for my own reasons (I prefer the hood and also the MF/AF switching on the FA* version + I already had a tripod ring that would work with it),

I think the suggestions for the new Pentax AW 1.3x TC are a bit of overkill for a screw drive lens. As fas as I can tell, the optics aren't vastly superior to the good screw drive 1.4x TCs that have been available for years (Tamron F 1.4x AF PZ MC4, Sigma EX 1.4x APO, both discontinued, or the Vivitar 1.4x which is available new) The only advantage that the Pentax would have is the chip will report the correct FL and Av, which might be important for your use, but this never has been much of a problem for me in practical use. For SR, the difference between 300 and 420 is not that great, and I still can reliably gain about 2 stops of shutter speed for handholding. If they all were the same price, and I had also had an SDM lens that I wanted to use the TC with and retain AF, then it'd be a no brainer, but at $600, and with no SDM long tele lenses, I decided to pass. If I want a 420mm f6.3, I'll use the Tamron or Sigma 1.4x TCs already mentioned and get what I'd expect to be similar performance. Ron (brandrx on DPR) long recognized as the TC guru on that forum, came to the same conclusion after obtaining a 1.4x AW soon after they were released.

Personally, I use my FA* 300/4.5 (essentially the same lens optically as the F*, but with some physical and operational differences) with a Pentax F 1.7x Auto Focusing Adapter as my main birding combination to get a very portable AF 510mm f7.7 for birding. It's very compact and handholdable. At f7.7 max aperture, it sounds like the AF would be sketchy, and it would only AF in bright light, but AF is really not a problem until it gets pretty dim, and available shutter speeds without using pretty high ISO become a more limiting factor than AF performance for me. The reason why AF can work with this combination is that the AFA with a tele lens has a limited focusing range, and the lens needs to be manually prefocused to allow the AFA to take over the focusing chores. The negative is that you need to manually adjust the focus ring if you're shooting at significantly different distances from shot to shot -- a lot of people don't like this.

The positives are that the AFA works as a focus limiter, so in tricky situations where the AF system might want to lock on the wrong thing in the AF sensor's area, I can refocus by slightly shifting the aiming point and rely use AF to refocus quickly without worrying about losing the shot altogether because the AF system decides to do a frustrating and time consuming full lock to lock hunt. The second plus is that AF will lock reliably even with the slow max aperture and relatively low light. The reason it works is that I have to manually prefocus the lens. In low light, the AF system will normally hunt and not achieve lock with most slow lenses, but if one manually prefocuses the lens so it's anywhere near the correct focusing distance, the system usually has no problem acquiring a lock. With the AFA the manual prefocus is part of the process. I actuate AF, then manually focus the lens. When the prefocus is close enough, the AFA takes over automatically, and it achieves a lock so I can take the shot. The prefocus needs to be closer in lower light, but the process remains the same, so although I'm not aware of it, I actually continue the manual focusing until the AF system can take over. I'm sure this sounds more complicated than it actually is. Another positive is that with the AFA, no FL is reported to the camera body, so the body requests a FL be inputted for SR. The setting is assigned to the AFA, so SR assumes the same setting every time the AFA is mounted. If you use it with another lens, then you need to input the correct FL for that lens, but if you use it only with one lens, the correct setting will be remembered.

If you want to shoot subjects that are moving through a wide range of focusing distances, then the AFA will probably disappoint, and a full focusing range TC would be a better choice. From what I've seen, the Promaster 1.7x seems to perform very well optically at the same magnification, but the max aperture might be a limitation in lower light for AF performance. The 1.4x TCs would probably be a better choice for this kind of work anyway.

Optically, I'm very pleased with the performance of the 1.7x AFA. Here are a few examples:

With the K-5, FA* 300 f4.5 + 1.7x AFA. Slightly cropped on the sides and PP'd to taste. This was shot handheld

With the K-5, Canon FD 300 f4L (permanently converted to K mount) + 1.7x AFA. Slightly cropped on the sides and PP'd to taste. This was shot at ISO 1600 in a shaded area -- tripod mounted

Scott

Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II 04-08-2015, 12:17 PM

What Are Your Preferred K-3 JPEG Settings?
Posted By snostorm

Replies: 10
Views: 3,538

Hi DavidSKAF3,

I shoot 99% jpegs and only shoot RAW for the more demanding lighting conditions, however, I also PP almost all of my keepers, so my settings won't help if your goal is to get the best results straight out of the camera. I shoot birds primarily, and the percentage of really "nailed" images is relatively low where the pose, detail captured, and unusual subject will all qualify to add to my portfolio. If I end up processing more than 10% of the shots I take, I consider that a very good day of shooting. There are a higher percentage of shots that are of acceptable quality, but many of them will be too similar to what I already have to consider them "keepers". I have to assume that this is nowhere near the norm for most photographers.

First thing I do when I get a new body is to set it to "Natural", as I don't like over-saturated colors, which seem to be a preference for a lot of people, and choose to tweak saturation in PP if called for, it only takes a few seconds. The same is true for contrast.

I turn high ISO NR "off" at all ISOs because I don't like the smearing that it produces and much prefer reducing noise using a dedicated plug in (Topaz DeNoise) even though the process is slow, the results are worth it when it comes to detail retention.

I reduce the sharpness setting to "-3" to eliminate local contrast enhancement "sharpening" as much as possible. This reduces both the "halo" and dark outline artifacts caused by in-camera processing to a minimum so I can sharpen in PP with Topaz InFocus, using only deconvolution sharpening and microcontrast as I feel that this gives a much more pleasing result. I also may use a touch of Focus Magic in its motion blur correction mode if necessary as I can't seem to get a handle on how to control this feature with InFocus -- most of the time, I only need to do this to small areas of the shot, but if a little bit of camera shake is evident, then I'll use it globally. InFocus is also a relatively slow process, but the results are far superior to what I can do with Unsharp Mask or any other local contrast enhancement techniques that are regularly used.

For the K-5 series bodies, I used *** quality instead of the available **** because I could not see any difference between the two when it came to quality. Apparently the Pentax engineers felt the same, and dropped the **** quality in the K-3. The difference is only in compression ratio, and if this doesn't produce visible artifacts, then the only difference is in file size, and I go by what I see, not by the misplaced logic of "more data must be better". If I can't see the difference, then there is no difference for me. I'm probably a lot more empirical than most. . .

I also tweak the colors a bit, according to what I see, but this is really personal preference, and has as much to do with particular lenses, the peculiarities of my vision, and the characteristics of the particular sensor in the camera, so these won't help much.

If you're satisfied with the general IQ of the jpegs straight OOC, then I'd suggest that you try experimenting with the IQ settings. Quite a bit can be done with these. You might try "Bright" or "Vivid" to start with, and tweak the color/hue settings and be able to get what you want. Increasing the Contrast setting might also help. I can't know what you like, so I can't really make any recommendations other than that.

"Just shoot RAW" is, IMO, condescending and dismissing to the OP. It may be the answer for many, but does not address the OP's question.

Scott

Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 12-31-2009, 04:15 PM

What the hell?
Posted By snostorm

Replies: 8
Views: 3,151

Hi Steve,

I have a complete retail price list from @ 2003/4 (I think). The MSRP for this lens was $792 USD, but I'm sure the street price was considerably less.

Here are the prices listed, so you can get an idea -- I'd say that @ 30% off would be a fair approximation for the street price for the more common lenses (this is a direct cut and paste from the list):

FA-ZOOM
27960 SMCP-FA 20-35mm f/4.0 AL (w/case & hood) 792.00
27627 SMCP-FA 24-90mm f/3.5-4.5 AL (IF) 665.00
27661 SMCP-FA* 28-70mm f/2.8 (w/hood, w/o case) 1,633.00
27697 SMCP-FA 28-90mm f/3.5-5.6 Silver 116.00
27678 SMCP-FA 28-105mm f/4.0-5.6 (IF) Silver (w/hood) 333.00
27997 SMCP-FA 28-105mm f/3.2-4.5 AL (IF) 317.00
27667 SMCP-FA 28-105mm f/4.0-5.6 (w/o case) (Power Zoom) 595.00
27597 SMCP-FA 80-200mm f/4.7-5.6 (w/o case) 210.00
27590 SMCP-FA* 80-200mm f/2.8 ED(IF) (w/case & hood) 2,075.00
(Power zoom)
27608 SMCP-FA 80-320mm F/4.5-5.6 Silver (w/o case) 320.00
27617 SMCP-FA 100-300mm f/4.7-5.8 Silver (w/o case) 250.00
27910 SMCP-FA* 250-600mm f/5.6 ED(IF) (w/trunk case) 10,254.00
(Power zoom)
FA J-ZOOM
27707 SMCP-FA J 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 AL 83.00
27717 SMCP-FA J 75-300mm f/4.5-5.8 AL 200.00
FA-STANDARD
20170 SMCP-FA 43mm f/1.9 Limited (w/case & hood) 750.00
20907 SMCP-FA 50mm f/1.7 (w/o case) 233.00
20817 SMCP-FA 50mm f/1.4 (w/o case) 315.00
FA-WIDE ANGLE
22880 SMCP-FA 20mm f/2.8 (w/case) 792.00
22630 SMCP-FA* 24mm f/2.0 AL(IF) (w/case) 583.00
22527 SMCP-FA 28mm f/2.8 AL (w/o case) 350.00
20280 SMCP-FA 31mm f/1.8 Limited (w/case & hood) 1,415.00
22190 SMCP-FA 35mm f/2.0 AL (w/case & hood) 475.00
FA-TELEPHOTO
27970 SMCP-FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited (w/case) 1,107.00
23080 SMCP-FA* 85mm f/1.4 (IF) (w/case) 1,293.00
23427 SMCP-FA 135mm f/2.8 (IF) (w/o case) 515.00
24140 SMCP-FA* 200mm f/2.8 (IF) (w/case) 1,422.00
24370 SMCP-FA* 300mm f/2.8 ED (IF) (w/case & hood) 6,067.00
24400 SMCP-FA* 300mm f/4.5 ED(IF) (w/case) 1,235.00
24580 SMCP-FA* 400mm f/5.6 ED(IF) (w/case & hood) 1,980.00
24870 SMCP-FA* 600mm f/4.0 ED(IF) (w/trunk case) 8,566.00
FA-MACRO
28170 SMCP-FA 50mm f/2.8 Macro (1:1 magnif., w/case) 498.00
28930 SMCP-FA 100mm f/2.8 Macro (1:1 magnif., w/case) 813.00
29007 SMCP-FA 100mm f/3.5 Macro (1:0.5 magnif., w/o case) 332.00
27630 SMCP-FA 200mm f/4.0 ED(IF) Macro 2,132.00
(1:1 magnif., w/o case) (w/hood)

Scott

Forum: Pentax Q 08-28-2012, 11:00 AM

What Q accessories are worth it?
Posted By snostorm

Replies: 213
Views: 76,183

Here's my list for Q accessories that I've found useful:

1. Leica Bright Line 50 OVF for the 01 prime. A bit tight, but everything in the VF gets captured and the parallax correction line works well for shorter subject to camera distances. I turn the LV off by pressing the Info button twice, and rely on the "beep" for AF confirmation. No magnification in the VF allows me to shoot with both eyes open, allowing me to frame the shot more quickly and accurately. The Leica BL 50 is about the same size as a US Nickel.
This is probably the best overall article on OVFs other than the newest OEM Japanese ones for MILCs:
Leica View Finders

2. Camdapter Camstrap. Adds bulk to the camera in pocket, but it's fast and allows full manipulation of all the right hand controls while securely holding the camera in one hand. I use a folding C ring screw and Arca compatible plate as a base plate for the strap. I do have to detach the strap to use the tripod plate, but use a very small "S" carabiner so the strap QRs from the bottom.
Camdapter - The Hand Strap

3. Hejnar Photo Arca compatible plate. The flat plate was not available at the time I bought mine, so I had to grind off the lip from the one that was available at the time. The one in this link would not need any grinding.
1" P&S camera plate 4 Markins arca swiss wimberley acratech foba benro kirk | eBay

4. JCC hoods for both the 01 prime and 02 zoom. AFAICT, these are equal to or the same as the OEM for a fraction of the cost. Can't find any current listings for US suppliers for the zoom hood. The 01 prime hood screws in and adds very little length to the lens. I put a very small rubber band on the screw-in cap to reduce the number of turns to remove it. The rubber allows for minimal tightening to keep it screwed in. The 02 zoom hood is a bayonet fit and will reverse install for compact storage.
Professional Replacement Lens Hood MH-RA40.5 For Pentax Q 8.5mm Lens Silver | eBay
Lens Hood for Pentax Q 5-15mm F2.8-4.5 ED AL lens as PH-SBA 40.5 | eBay

5. JCC body and rear lens cap set -- actually nicer and more compact than the OEM. Both caps included in set. Much cheaper than OEM ones I've found.
Professional Body Cap & Rear Lens Cap for Pentax Q Mount 8.5mm New Cover | eBay

6 RJ K -mount to Q lens adapter. AFAIK, this is the best bang for the buck. The tiny screws in the tripod mount stripped out, but I either hand hold or use my body mount Arca compatible plate or a lens tripod foot and plate, so I really don't need it. The RJ does have an aperture control ring so you can use DA series lenses with the Q and still have some aperture control. Without this, DA lenses would mount at min aperture (stopped down all the way) unless you physically blocked the aperture lever on the lens (inconvenient at best and leaves the possibility that the piece used to block the lever might fall out and rattle around in the camera body)
RJ Pentax PK PK-A AF DA lens to Pentax Q adapter with tripod mount aperture ring | eBay

7. Kipon Pentax P110 to Q lens adapter. I have this one, and it's very good. In the meantime, RJ has come up with one at a lower price, so this might be a consideration.
Kipon Adapter for PTX AUTO 110 P110 mount lens to Pentax Q Camera EXPRESS MAIL! | eBay

pentax 110 lens PTX AUTO 110 P110 mount lens to Pentax Q mount adapter | eBay

8. Metz 20 C2 Auto flash. For Auto flash, the exposure sensor is in the flash, so there is no communication with the body other than fire. No preflash "blinkies", but with the Q, you need to turn the flash "Off" in the flash menu to get it to fire. This is about the same size as the AF 180 FC, but has a 90º tilting flash reflector for bounce flash.
Metz mecablitz 20 C-2 Auto Flash MZ 20220 B&H Photo Video

8a. Metz 24 AF-1 P-TTL flash. P-TTL. so it preflashes and meters with the camera's sensor. There are no manual controls, so it's P-TTL only. Reflector tilts 90º up.for bounce. This unit is about the same size as the 20 C2. Boith of these Metz flashes are a decent size match for the Q, about the height and width of a pack of king size filter cigarettes, and use 2 AA batteries.
Metz mecablitz 24AF-1 Digital Flash for Pentax Camera MZ 24317PS

There are some limitations to the use of external flash with adapted lenses. A P-TTL flash will work intermittently (won't always fire), and P-TTL metering seems to work at least some of the time. Red Eye or slow spped sync needs to be set in the flash menu for this much functionality. Auto or manual flash will not fire with adapted lenses, regardless of menu setting. Flash is limited to 1/13 sec sync because of the electronic sensor. Fill flash outdoors with an external sensor is not practical because the shutter speed is so slow. Flash as the primary light source could be accomplished in daylight with ND or polarizing filters and smaller apertures to cut down the ambient though. Remember that these limitations are only really for adapted lenses. The 01 prime and 02 zoom will work fine with either Auto or P-TTL because they have the shutter in the lens, and both can sync to 1/250 with external flash (or to the fastest shutter speed with the pop up)

9. Extra batteries. I have 4 extras for my Q, and always carry at least 2 spares. I got the Wasabi generics along with their charger which is can use both house current and 12 V DC in the car. The batteries seem to charge faster than the OEM and last about the same.
Amazon.com: Wasabi Power Battery and Charger Kit for Pentax D-LI68, D-LI122 and Pentax Q, Optio A36, Optio S10, Optio S12, Optio VS20: Camera & Photo

Here's a shot of my Q from the back showing the Camstrap, Leica BL 50 and tripod plate attached.

Scott

Forum: Pentax Q 04-15-2012, 11:49 PM

Let's share shots with Q!
Posted By snostorm

Replies: 6,907
Views: 1,201,554

Hi barondla,

Thanks!

I've learned that accepting "conventional wisdom" about digital photography is not necessarily in my best interest, so I usually go out of my way to think outside the box and try stuff that's not supposed to work. I realize that I probably have lower standards than many about what is an "acceptable" image, and I probably rely on PP more than most to get some of the final images that work for me, but if this works to my benefit, it's all good.

I've still got quite a few lenses to test, and unfortunately too few subjects to shoot. Most of my normal haunts aren't producing much this spring, and the unusual weather isn't helping, filling out the trees prematurely, and I'm learning new techniques to shoot the Q all the time. I should be showing some new results with more lenses pretty soon.

Scott

Forum: Pentax Q 02-26-2012, 04:38 PM

Let's share shots with Q!
Posted By snostorm

Replies: 6,907
Views: 1,201,554

The FE is a ton of fun IMO. Just got one recently, and the first thing I did was to torment my cats by sticking the Q in their faces -- I couldn't help myself.

This one's at ISO 3200, 1/10, Jpeg, with Sharpening and Contrast turned down in the image settings. The only PP done was I cloned a few minor background distractions out then resized in steps to 1024 on the long side. This was shot from about 3" from her nose. I preset the focus and was just holding the camera, not even looking at the LCD.

Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II 05-16-2013, 03:33 PM

K-5 -- Drive Mode Menu
Posted By snostorm

Replies: 7
Views: 3,701

Hi CHERRYJAY,

Capture Mode means that the camera is ready to take pictures as opposed to "playback mode" where it is set to display images already taken. "Drive Mode refers to the menu screen when you press the topmost button on the 4 way controller (there's a timer like symbol) the second position from the left shows cascading rectangles, and by selecting this position and choosing between Hi and Low, you can choose between fast and slower continuous exposures.

Scott

Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10-23-2013, 03:08 PM

Pentax 100mm macro WR vs Non-WR
Posted By snostorm

Replies: 13
Views: 2,720

I own the D FA 100, pre WR, and my impression from image examples is that the WR is better -- mostly in the area of CA/PF. Of course, there's also the WR. If I were in the market for a 100mm dedicated Macro, the WR version would be a no brainer.

I originally chose the D FA for its weight since I like to shoot macro handheld with flash, and the WR version is actually smaller and lighter.

Any macro lens can be used with a TC for added magnification. TCs usually allow slightly closer Minimum Focusing Distances, so the magnification increase can be slightly greater than that stated on the TC (for example, the 1.7x AFA on a 1:1 dedicated macro lens results in about a 1.9:1 mag ratio). Whether the IQ will be satisfactory is up to the quality of the TC, and the skill/technique of the photographer. Any faults in the lens will be magnified by the TC, and any faults in the optics of the TC will probably be obvious. In addition to the mag ratio, the lens will lose effective max aperture directly proportional to the magnification increase. Greater than 1:1 macro photography becomes exponentially more difficult as the magnification increases. Advantages that can be gained with a TC is that with the increased effective FL, one can shoot at 1:1 at a longer working distance. This gives deeper DOF, is possibly less intimidating to live subjects, and gives you a shallower angle for a camera mounted flash.

Just my 2¢

Scott

Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 08-08-2016, 04:20 PM

Replacement for my 55-300?
Posted By snostorm

Replies: 25
Views: 2,825

Hi AggieDad,

Maybe thinking a bit outside the box might be in order. Since you mentioned birds, and have a 150-500, I'm assuming that you are looking for a solution that gives you less hunting for this purpose.

I've been shooting birds with my Pentax DSLRs for over 10 years, and my main solution for this has been the F 1.7x Auto Focusing Adaptor. The 1.7x AFA was introduced with the first Pentax AF bodies to give AF capability to the faster MF lenses. Because of the physical length of the adapter to give it the AF capability, it also acts as a 1.7x TC.

At "normal" FLs like with a 50mm f2 lens, all you need to do is prefocus the lens to infinity and the lens becomes an 85mm f3.4 AF lens throughout the focusing range of the lens. All AF is done within the AFA, and any AF capablility of the lens itself is lost if you mount it on the AFA. Auto Exposure works with any "A" capable lens, and the AFA even automatically calculates the f stop that's recorded in Exif to correct for the TC effect.

With telephoto lenses, the range of distances where the AFA will obtain critical focus gets narrower, so the lens needs to be manually prefocused to within the range of the AFA. This essentially makes the AFA a focus limiter in addition to being a very competent 1.7x TC with AF capability with any K mount lens. There is no free lunch, so as with any TC, you also lose max aperture in proportion to the magnification factor, so you need faster (faster than f4.5 in my experience) max aperture lenses for reasonable AF reliability and speed in most daylight conditions.

What this does is cut down the hunting to only the range of the AFA's AF range, which is relatively short at closer distances with tele lenses. Also, because the focusing lens groups within the AFA are small and light compared to those in most lenses, screwdrive AF is very snappy with the AFA.

What does this mean for you? You can add an AFA to your kit for probably between $200-300, but you'll have to find a used one since they aren't made anymore. There are usually some available in the marketplace on this site. Even though your current DA 55-300 has a max aperture of f5.8 at 300mm, it's about f4.5 at 200mm, so by limiting the zoom, you should be able to use it with the AFA to get 340mm f7.7, and this should give you reasonably fast and accurate AF in most daylight conditions. You'll not be adding much size or weight to your kit, and in bright daylight, you might be able to get reasonable AF performance at even the longer FLs pst 200mm.

For future consideration, if you choose to seek better IQ or longer reach, it will allow you to consider MF lens alternatives that might be less costly. A good example might be a K 300 f4. You can probably find one for maybe 250-350 used. This will give you a sub 3 lb 510mm f6.8 AF lens. Better yet, get an A*300 f4 and get better optics and lighter weight, but it'll cost maybe $200 more. I use an FA*300 f4.5 + AFA most of the time as my main birding lens which gives me 510mm f7.7. It's smaller and lighter than any of the similar alternatives and adds ED optics which control CA/PF much better than the older lenses, and focuses to @ 6 ft. I've seen these available for $600-900 as well as the F*300 f4.5 which is optically identical. The F* and FA* 300/4.5 lenses are also Internal Focusing lenses so they stay the same compact size in use, unlike the Sigma zooms which get pretty long when zoomed out to 500mm. The fractional f stop slower is really of no consequence with the higher ISO capabilities of the newer Pentax DSLRs.

I could go on, but will stop here. . . just something els to consider. . .

Scott

Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 07-11-2015, 09:30 AM

Looking for a great wildlife lens
Posted By snostorm

Replies: 53
Views: 7,535

Derek makes a good point, that long lenses aren't necessarily only for shooting distant subjects. I shoot a lot of songbirds at very close distances, and the 500mm + primes are not really suitable because of their @13 ft Minimum Focusing Distance specs. For the way I like to shoot, a 300mm prime (either f4/4.5 or f2.8) + 1.4x or 1.7x TC, or in the case of an f2.8, possibly both stacked is more suitable with MFD of @ 6-8 ft. A significant percentage of shots that present themselves for me are at distances of 8-12 ft and would not have been possible with, say a Sigma EX 500/4.5, but were easily accomplished with either my FA* 300/4.5 or FA* 300/2.8/Sigma EX 300/2.8 and a 1.7x AFA. I've had many opportunities to pick up the Sigma 500 for exceptionally good prices, but have always passed because the MFD was not really suitable for my style of shooting.

There are other considerations than just FL and lens speed. For me, especially with newer bodies with good higher ISO performance, the 300s + TC(s) are much more versatile and can give me the reach, IQ, and MFD that I want to work with.

Scott

Forum: Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 08-01-2016, 10:13 PM

Tripod head
Posted By snostorm

Replies: 22
Views: 2,470

Hi Liz,

Excuse me if I'm telling you something that you already know, but any head will be infinitely easier to position and hold if you can balance the camera/lens on the head. This is most easily done by using an Arca Swiss compatible clamp and a suitable plate for your camera or lens. It's possible that the heads you already have might be at least adequate if you can balance the load, but better quality heads usually offer quicker and easier adjustments as well as better construction and more positive locking.

I always seek to balance my camera/lens on any tripod head I'm using, which include ball heads and gimbals.

Scott

Forum: Pentax Q 01-26-2015, 09:36 AM

My new Q7, JPG sharpening settings comparative test
Posted By snostorm

Replies: 6
Views: 1,780

Hi Altglas,

Back to the OP of this thread. . . I shoot jpegs almost exclusively, but the why is another subject. . .

I set up all of my cameras for jpeg output. Takes a little time and experimentation when I first get a camera, but I only really have to do this once. On all of my cameras (currently a K-5, K-5 IIs, K-3, 2 Q's, and a newly obtained Sony A7s) I've found that what works best for me when it comes to in-camera sharpening is to minimalize it to control noise artifacts and local contrast enhancement, then reduce noise and then sharpen in post, adding another round of NR if necessary to clean up the background. This workflow varies with the intended output, but remains essentially the same, except for degree in the respective plugins.

I use PSPPX7 for PP, but mostly so I can use Topaz DeNoise and InFocus for NR and sharpening as plugins. I've set in-camera sharpening to -3 for all cameras and in-camera high ISO NR to "off", or as close as I can get (with the Q it's Low).

The thing I don't like about in-camera sharpening is the exaggeration of the edges. Pentax seems to bias this towards the dark side of the contrast edge, probably to reduce the more obvious light halos that are so evident in many pics I see on the web. This bias can cause a dark outline in areas where they should not be, and for me, this is just as bad. Sharpening with InFocus can be done with deconvolution, increase in microcontrast, and with unsharp mask in any combination of the three. I use the first two almost exclusively, sometimes either/or, or in combination. I use DeNoise first, even if the image is relatively clean, because any noise artifacts will be enhanced with any sharpening method, and DeNoise does a much better job than any in-camera sharpening is capable of. It reduces noise with a minimum of smearing, and it actually restores edge integrity where noise has made it jagged. Both plugins need to be used as sparingly as possible, and it takes a bit of experimentation to really get a feeling about how to use them,but once I find a good setting for a particular camera/ISO, I save a preset and work from there.

I push all of my cameras a lot further than most are willing to as far as ISO is concerned. I'll go to 3200 on the Q, 10,000 on the K-3 or K-5s, and @ 100,000 for the A7s (but this is at the extreme, so if I want fine detail, the limit is set a stop or two lower respectively)

This methodology is not for everyone, but it works for me.

Scott

Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 06-17-2016, 01:40 PM

K1 or K3-II when mostly tele?
Posted By snostorm

Replies: 55
Views: 8,554

Hi Norm,

I've also dealt with the AF limitations of all of my Pentax bodies since the DS over 10 years ago, and have upgraded bodies just to get the incremental improvements in AF performance that each has offered. When the K-1 was announced, I placed myself in the "probably won't get one" category as I assumed about $2500 in price, and there really isn't any "full frame advantage" for what I shoot (birds mostly). My "local" (70 mi away) B&M dealer knows what I shoot, and suggested I make the trip to try the K-1 despite my misgivings.

I made the trip, bringing my goto birding lens kit --FA*300/4.5 + F1.7x AFA (I have two of ea of these), my DFA 150-450, and my Tamron 28-75/2.8, FA50/1.4, and FA77 Ltd.

He let me use his own personal K-1 body, let me set it up however I liked, and let me shoot as much as I wanted in the store and outside in the parking lot. I brought my Asus Zen 15" laptop so I could play with the files there onsite. I alternated shooting with my K-3 and the K-1 with the FA*300+AFA and was surprised at how well the f7.7 max combo locked focus especially indoors compared to the K-3. Just chimping on the LCD, I could see that the K-1 was giving me better AF accuracy.

I was allowed to use an empty desk to play with the files on my laptop. Examining the images on the 4K laptop screen, I was pleased to see that critical AF lock was consistently more accurate with the K-1, especially in the lower light situations. I was shooting single shots, refocusing with AF each shot, even if I was shooting the same subject, as this is how usually I shoot when out in the field. The lower light AF performance is important to me because birds don't always choose the best lit branches to sit on, and often I'm shooting deep in the woods or in very shaded areas. I shoot opportunistically, so I need to be able to shoot in any lighting conditions that present themselves, and with an f7.7 max aperture, need all the help I can get from AF.

Also, with such a slow max aperture, high ISO comes into play more often than for most. With the K-3 I try to keep it under ISO 1000. With the K-1, I'm finding that 4000 takes about the same amount of work in PP to give me very good final images, and 5000-6400 might work as I'm still experimenting with some different techniques in PP.

I must admit that I don't shoot a lot of bursts, as I mostly shoot perching songbirds. I do always set up my shutter in Continuous High in case I want a burst, but burst speed is not a high priority for me, and 6.3fps in crop mode is easily good enough for my use -- and even 4fps in FF mode would not decrease my keeper rate.

Bottom line, the higher ISO capabilities plus the more versatile (lower light capable) consistently critically accurate AF made the difference, and I wrote a check and walked out with a brand new K-1. Another factor was the wider FOV VF, and the ability to change from FF to crop mode and back with a click of the dial. I've had enough situations where using a prime was a bit of a problem because I was too close, and stepping back wasn't an option because my subjects would spook.

Body weight difference is also not much of a problem for me though my aging joints do complain. I find myself picking spots that are easier to get to, so this is really not an issue. Also I'm not counting cost as an issue, though I realize that this is a high priority for many.

Bottom line, I'm getting more keepers than with previous bodies. I'm surprised at the higher percentage (maybe 20-30% better) of shots with acceptable or better feather detail because of the AF-S improvements in lower light and its decisiveness. I'm now able to get better IQ because I can shoot at higher ISO for faster shutter speeds and I can even stop the lens down for better resolution if I want.

I don't crop much for extra "reach". I generally shoot pretty close, which is why I prefer the 300mm+AFA which will mostly focus to @ 6ft as opposed to longer optics which typically have 10-13ft MFDs. I do shoot the K-1 in crop mode a lot because there's little sense to shooting in FF mode and capturing 20 or so MP that I'm going to crop out anyway. When I crop, 90% of the time it's very slightly for composition.

I'll include a few samples, but I've yet to develop a downsizing to 1400 pixels on the longside workflow that do the images much justice. Note that the first is at ISO 2500.

You've asked for samples showing IQ improvements in a number of posts, and I can understand this, but I would ask that you actually shoot a K-1 and compare it directly to what you currently shoot before stating that there would be no reason for a tele shooter to upgrade. It's fine to argue specs and try to imagine the differences in shooting experience and results, but it may be quite different in the actual shooting.

I'm very happy with my decision to get a K-1, and think you might actually be impressed if you tried one.

Scott

Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 06-05-2016, 11:11 AM

Benefits of using K-1 with DA lens over K-3II?
Posted By snostorm

Replies: 20
Views: 2,906

For my purposes, the K-1 holds up as a legitimate upgrade for any Pentax DSLR (read APS-C) shooter, with the exception of those who will greatly benefit from the 24MP resolution alone in the K-3 series bodies or can't work with a bigger heavier body. Over the past 12 or so years, I've continued to upgrade my Pentax bodies to get either better high ISO performance or better AF performance (or both). Considered as an APS-C body, the K-1 gives me a similar step up in ISO and AF S performance as I got going from the K-7 to the K-5, and at the time of the intro of the K-5, this was considered very significant. I doubt if too many here would spend much time considering between these two models if all things were equal.

As a shooter who is very satisfied with APS-C format (I shoot long tele for the most part), I look at using the "full frame" sensor more as another option that I can bring into play if I want, and it's a very significant option. I'm sure that many will see this as a stupid perspective, but it was worth it to me to become an early adopter of the K-5, and for a couple of hundred dollars more, about 6 years later, it's been very worthwhile for me to become an early adopter of the K-1.

I don't crop much to gain "reach", so the extra resolution of the K-3 has not really reflected much in the number of usable images I can get over a 15-16 MP body. Though my cameras are always set up in "burst high" for those few times I want a sequence, the slower burst rate of the K-1 is not a handicap for the way I shoot. I hold high ISO IQ and low light AF speed and accuracy as higher priorities for my shooting than these specs. Although I own competent lenses in the 28-70 and 80-200 f2.8 constant 35mm format classes, I much prefer carrying and shooting my DA* 16-50 and DA* 50-135 to get the same FOV ranges in fast zooms, and for me, extra resolution doesn't offer nearly as much advantage as the ability to go to higher ISO and get fast and accurate focus in lower light. My fast 50's serve dual duty as fast normal and short tele (portrait) in crop mode. My FA 77 Ltd gives me another portrait option with much greater resolution if I want it. If I need to go wider, then my DA 12-24 covers the 35mm frame from @ 18 - 24mm and that's wide enough for me in a rectilinear lens. I also have a DA 10-17 FE to play with wide.

I look at a new body and ask if this one will expand my ability to capture images that I want. A lot of the esoteric arguments for the larger format (thinner DOF, higher ultimate res, using legacy lenses "as they were designed", etc) aren't very relevant for me. I realize that I don't look at this from the same perspective as most will, but it certainly is working for me.

Scott

Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 05-26-2016, 03:21 PM

How many APSC shooters will truly upgrade to K1
Posted By snostorm

Replies: 347
Views: 33,915

I'm primarily a birder and had thought that there couldn't be any advantage to going with a full 35mm format. I was wrong, and that's why just relying on numbers on a spec sheet can be so misleading. I see a lot of post where people assume that the 15MP crop mode of the K1 will be essentially the same as the 16MP K5II, and that just doesn't take into account advancements in sensors and the in-camera processing engine. For my purposes, the K1 in crop mode is almost as big a step forward from the K5II/K3 in high ISO performance as was the K5 from the K7. AF-S is noticeably quicker and more positive to lock focus, the center focus point seems to be a bit smaller and more discreet, and fine focus lock seems to be more consistent. This includes performance at lower light levels -- faster and more accurated. Add the wider FOV in the VF which helps me acquire my subject faster with ultra and super tele lenses, this is simply a better body for what I do. Being able to quickly change from 35mm to APS-C has also helped in a few instances where I was actually too close. I shoot with primes primarily, so being able to "step back" without actually moving has improved my ability to get the whole bird in frame in such instances.

I also have a Sony A7S for indoor candids without flash. The K1 is proving to be close enough in performance at ridiculously high ISO (12800 and up) that I can use it in most cases where I'd normally use the A7S. Since I already had a good Tamron 28-75/2.8, I can use the K1 for these situations unless I want completely silent operation, and that's really the main reason why I plan on keeping the Sony. The K1's shutter is pretty inconspicuous though, but the Sony can be shot totally silent. I've also found that my DA 12-24 covers the full frame from @ 18mm to 24mm, so if I need something wider, I have it.

I'm finding that I get a significantly higher percentage of shots with good to excellent feather detail. This is due to a number of things.

1. My main birding lens kit is an FA* 300/4.5 + F1.7x AFA, so it's slow (510mm f7.7 wide open). With significantly higher ISO (about 2 stops), I have both the luxury of higher shutter speeds or being able to stop down the lens for a little more sharpness.

2. Faster subject acquisition and faster AF lock gives me a fraction of a second advantage to get a shot off, and that's even more important as age slows down my reaction time.

3. I feel that the SR is more effective, and this definitely helps because I mostly shoot handheld, and a tiny bit of camera shake just destroys fine feather detail.

4. I could be wrong, but the jpegs seem to show a bit more shadow deinition than previous sensors, so it seems that the jpeg processing in the camera has been improved a bit.

5. The files seem to be a bit more flexible in PP, even though I shoot mainly jpeg.

Bottom line, even just shooting in crop mode, the K1 is a significant step up for me, and I've upgraded bodies at almost every generation -- DS, K100DS, K10, K20, K7, K5, K5II, K3, and now K1 so I am aware of just about all of the incremental upgrades Pentax has made with their bodies.

Scott

Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 05-27-2016, 08:22 PM

Shoudl I buy a K 1, K 3ii, or invest in a lens
Posted By snostorm

Replies: 117
Views: 12,388

Hi Norm,

I won't say that the K1 is the answer for birding, but after three weeks shooting in crop mode almost exclusively, with an FA* 300/4.5 + F1.7x AFA (a lens combo I've been shooting with with various bodies for over a decade, The K1 in crop mode works well for me.

This lens combo is very slow (max aperture of f7.7) and though AF has worked well with all bodies, including the DS, it really works a lot better with the latest versions of SAFOX, and it's noticeably better for me in lower light which is all too common. The K1 allows me to shoot at higher ISO, so I can choose faster shutter speeds, stop the lens down a bit, or both. The wider FOV allows me quicker acquisition of my subject in the VF, and being able to instantly change from FF to Crop mode or back gives me some framing versatility if the subject gets "too close". and I can't move back. I normally shoot at under 15 feet, so this can be more common than some might think, and the FA*+ 1.7x AFA combo will focus to @ 6 ft, so it's easily possible. AF-S is quicker to lock, with fewer or no micro adjustments while it's focusing depending on the light. For me, the quicker acquisition and more positive lock helps offset my age induced slower reaction times, and the AFA, though quick to lock critical focus, needs to be prefocused manually (as you know), so if the camera is quicker, I'm capable of getting more shots.

I would limit my K5 to ISO 1280, and only use the upper reaches if absolutely necessary. The K3, I limited to ISO 1000. With the K1, I let ISO go up to 4000-5000, but try to keep it below 2000. This extra stop is very valuable because (in addition to what I feel is better SR performance) feather detail is destroyed by very minor camera shake, and I shoot almost exclusively handheld. I'm finding that I get a significantly higher percentage of acceptable shots per shoot, and that works for me.

I have the luxury of having two of each FA* 300/4.5 and F 1.7x AFA, so I was able to shoot both a K5 and a K3 directly against the K1, and though I'm not immune to the novelty of using a new toy, I find myself grabbing the K1 when I go to shoot some birds.

I also picked up a DFA 150-450 (so it's been an expensive spring!) and it's a great lens, but over twice as heavy as my 510mm combo. It's WR and a bit faster, so it has a place, but my main birding lens kit will remain the same.

Here are a couple of shots that show some of the advantages. They may not be up to your standards, but they're pretty good, especially considering the conditions some were shot at.

Chipmunk -- note ISO is 2000 -- conditions overcast with little or no shadow

Brown Headed Cowbird -- also ISO 2000 by mistake, but it really didn't hurt the shot, and it showed me some possibilities if I need really high shutter speeds -- Both of these were with the 150-450 @ 450mm

House Finch -- ISO 500 so I could get 1/250 FA*300 + AFA

Scarlet Tanager -- ISO 400 so I could get 1/250. I used EV-1 and still blew out the red channel a bit, but I was able to stop down the lens 1 stop. FA* 300 + AFA

I'm not recommending this as the best body for birding for most people, but as a Pentaxian birder, it's working for me.

Scott

Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 01-01-2010, 03:48 PM

Pentax F 1.7x AF TC
Posted By snostorm

Replies: 160
Views: 48,785

I'll add some comments, but I'm an unashamed F 1.7x AFA fanboy, so take that into account, and excuse the long writeup. . .

The 1.7x AFA is my most used Pentax product. I currently have 3, and would feel handicapped if I only had one. All of mine were purchased used, and are from the original production, so I can't comment on the new ones, but the 4 that I have owned performed identically , so if the new ones have been made from NOS components (the comment about not marketing in EU for environmental reasons points to this), they should perform consistently. The last one I purchased was the most expensive -- an EX condition for $228 shipped from KEH, about 6 weeks ago, so if one looks hard enough, and has a bit of luck (I'm sure I just lucked into logging on within minutes of this one being posted), these don't have to be prohibitively expensive.

At least one member here feels that this TC is inferior optically, but from his comments, he's never used one, so I have to question his motivation in saying this.
He also criticizes the AFA from the perspective that it can only be used to advantage with MF lenses, and that using it with an AF lens is silly and wasteful. Here, lack of experience also shows -- An AF version of a lens usually has a shorter rotational throw from lock to lock than an MF version, and AF lenses have less dampened focus ring action (considered a liability to MF technique). Since the MF component is only used to get the focus somewhat close, and only a rough adjustment is necessary. AF lenses are actually preferable for use with the AFA.

This member also finds the very quick AF speed to lock, the focus limiting (which I see as a feature, not a liability), and the fact that any lens with the AFA turns into a Quick Shift lens as "minute" advantages. I disagree. . . I find all of these considerable advantages in use.

There are two more advantages to the AFA's design. AFAIK, it's the only K-mount AF TC that does NOT pass through lens ID or FL info for AF lenses. This necessitates entering a FL to calibrate SR. This is less of an advantage on zooms than primes, but I haven't found that many zooms that I'd use TCs with (the 70-200/2.8s and Sig 100-300/4 are the most notable exceptions), but IMO, being able to approximate FL as a choice is better than the alternative of being forced to use the SR with a 1.4x, 1.7x, or 2x error, or not at all. The second, is that the AFA is (again AFAIK) the only AF TC that automatically converts the effective Av considering the 1.7x magnification. This is a minor point, but might be advantageous to P-TTL flash use.

Pentax is the only mfg to successfully implement this idea. Nikon produced the TC16a, which mirrors the intent, but a web search for this item quickly showed me its many flaws and limitations. The Pentax AFA is the only adapter that will work as intended, allowing AF critical focusing for any K-mount lens with any KAF body.

The disadvantages the AFA has are generally shared with other TCs. You lose light -- the physics of the situation dictates that the effective Av is directly proportional to the FL, so there is @a 1 1/2 stop penalty in light gathering. There is the inevitable degradation of IQ from adding optical elements not matched to the original design of the lens. I've only noticed this in the quality of the bokeh for relatively close BG and FG objects (they might get slightly more frantic), and the inevitable magnification of CA/PF faults from the lens. If one desires better CA/PF performance, your only real choice is to use the TC with a better lens in this regard. In my experience, any losses in apparent sharpness and ability to capture fine detail are offset by the added magnification which allows finer critical focusing and better metering. This probably helps me more than others as I like to shoot "closeups" of small birds. The last disadvantage is that it might be considered fiddly to use -- a claim that I have already answered. The AFA also restricts you to center point focusing, but can use any of the metering pattern options.

Some of my not-as-apparent uses for the AFA are with lenses like the FA 50/1.4 and D FA 100/2.8 macro. With the 50, it makes a pretty nice, compact 85/2.4 portrait lens with appropriately shallow DOF. With the 100 macro, I get a 170/4.8 that can both give me greater than 1:1, and will give me significantly more working distance at 1:1.

Ultimately, it's most used for birding. I'm a bit physically challenged by age, small stature, and a heart condition, so I just can't physically handle the best of the long tele primes (notably the Sigma EX 500/4.5, Pentax A*400/2.8, FA*600/4, and FA*250-600), nor do I have sufficient support for these lenses. I use an Amvona ATA 104T with a Wimberley clamp modified Manfrotto 468MG, and Wimberley Sidekick (which would probably work with the Sigma, but the other 3 would be quite a bit too much weight for any of these components). With the AFA and other TCs and two lenses (FA*300/4.5 and FA*300/2.8), I have the versatility of using 300/4.5, 300/2.8, 420/6.3, 420/3.9, 510/7.7, 510/4.8, 600/5.6, 714/6.7, 867/8.1 -- all with the convenience of AF and AE. I'm able to carry these pretty easily, including the support stuff, in addition to a couple of other smaller lenses for a reasonably long distance. There is no way I could carry any two of the larger primes like this, so I'd never use them, except for somewhere very close to home, which would hardly be worth the entry price. . .

Agree or disagree if you will, but the F 1.7x AFA has my vote for the most versatile and enabling accessory for Pentax long tele shooters by quite a margin.

To make a long post even longer, I'll include some samples . . . You can see that each was shot with a different body. All final focusing decisions were made by the respective AF system, and the flash shot was a totally brainless P-TTL exposure (attach the flash, turn it on, and shoot).

K100DS, FA*300/4.5, 1.7x AFA

K-7, FA* 300/2.8, 1.7x AFA

K10, Tamron SP 300/2.8, Tamron SP 140E 1.4x TC, 1.7x AFA, AF 540FGZ in P-TTL

DS, Tamron SP300/2.8, Tamron 140E 1.4x TC, 1.7x AFA

K20, FA*300/2.8, Sigma EX 1.4x APO AF TC, 1.7x AFA

Scott

Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 04-09-2016, 10:39 AM

Pentax F1.7x AF compared to HD PENTAX-DA1.4x AF
Posted By snostorm

Replies: 26
Views: 2,541

Having an AF mechanism of its own can also be an advantage. I use the F 1.7x AFA quite a bit with AF lenses -- because of the limited range of focus and the speed of locking focus within that range. For me, the AFA works as the most effective focus limiter I've used (much easier to use than the one on the FA* 300/2.8, for ex). I can use AF to make tiny focus adjustments for static subjects (like perching birds) without having to worry that the lens might go into a long lock to lock focus hunt. Even if it does lose fine focus and hunt, the process with the limited focus range only takes a fraction of a second, and I'm back on track.

I even use the AFA with my dedicated macro lenses so I can use AF shooting macro, which is usually thought of as impractical. The focus range with the AFA at macro distances is tiny, and even a lock to lock focus hunt only moves the focus point a few mm, if even that. The added magnification is a bonus.

Also, the AFA does convert f-stop in the camera for exif, and because it does not pass a FL from the lens, it requires that you set FL up when mounted (and holds this FL info from the last time I used the AFA), so FL to match SR is not the problem it is with a 3rd party TC. If you use a lot of different lenses with it, then you must manually change the FL for SR, if you use the same lens, it's essentially automatic.

I guess advantages/disadvantages pretty much depends on one's perspective.

Scott

Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II 12-22-2012, 11:02 AM

Post Your K5IIs Pictures Here!
Posted By snostorm

Replies: 2,878
Views: 492,375

Haven't had too much chance to use it, but here's one from a walk soon after I received mine.

K5 IIs, FA* 300/4.5 + P F 1.7x AFA (510mm f7.7). 1/250, lens wide open (AFA converts and rounds to f8), ISO 4500, handheld. Shot in jpeg, very mild NR and sharpening in post.

Scott

Forum: Lens Sample Photo Archive 08-21-2012, 03:32 PM

Pentax F 1.7x AF Teleconverter + lens
Posted By snostorm

Replies: 51
Views: 17,032

I'll play -- I have used an F 1.7x AFA more often than not since I obtained my first one over 6 years ago. I currently have 3. One is taped for use with my Sigma EX 180 f3.5 Macro, a second is taped for use with my Sigma EX 300 f2.8, and the third is stock for use with Tamron and Pentax lenses. Sigma lenses don't transmit proper aperture information with the AFA, so contacts have to be insulated to get close to accurate aperture info for the exif. I've had 4 of these over the years, and never paid more than $200 for one. The prices they're commanding the past few years are pretty amazing, but it's a pretty uniquely useful piece of kit.

I first started using it with an A* 300 f4 and the DS exclusively handheld.

When I obtained a Tamron SP 300 f2.8, it was a natural addition. This shot was handheld, leaning against my car, with the DS, so no SR

I was amazed at the detail I was able to capture -- (luck had something to do with it:)) Here's a 100% crop from this shot near the center straight OOC

I always try to push my gear to see what it will do, and had to try the SP 300 with the SP 140F 1.4x Adaptall TC and the 1.7x AFA and the K20. 714mm really needs a tripod. This is about a 1/2 frame crop.

I now use it mostly with the FA* 300 f4.5 handheld. This is a crop from a handheld shot with the K-7

The best results I've gotten have been with the FA* 300 f2.8. This was shot from a tripod with this lens and the AFA. It's a full height vertical crop from a landscape frame.

Outstanding results can be gotten with the FA* 300 f2.8 with stacked TCs. This one is with the K20, this lens + a Sigma EX 1.4x APO TC + the 1.7x AFA (714mm f6.7 max). A full height vertical crop from a landscape shot.

Here's a 100% crop from about 1/2 way down from the center of the frame straight OOC.

Scott

Search took 0.01 seconds | Showing results 1 to 25 of 154

Page 1 of 7

⟶

Last »

Forum Jump

Search Results for Liked Posts