|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
07-22-2013, 09:50 AM
|
| |
I own the FA 77mm and recently rented the Olympus 75mm, so I thought I'd compare the two: Battle of the Legends
I got into the m4/3 system as a backup for my Pentax system but I have to admit that it's winning me over. Doesn't mean I like Pentax any less, though.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
07-22-2013, 10:07 AM
|
| |
It may have been discussed, but nobody followed up with any images comparing the two. Just lots of arguing and guessing.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
12-03-2012, 06:18 PM
|
| |
Clearly Pentax is playing some kind of game with their pricing strategy and it's the customers who suffer.
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
06-15-2012, 02:25 PM
|
| |
Sometimes it's helpful to ask yourself what the photo is "about." If it is about the textures of the flower, then crop closer and sharpen more and maybe boost the contrast a little. If it is about the colors, try cropping less to show more context and emphasize the color contrast between the yellow and blue. I like the second crop best.
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
06-06-2012, 08:45 AM
|
| |
As someone who switched from Sony to Pentax about 2 years ago, I would say Sony's A-mount peaked with the A700 / A900. They had better sensors after that, but the ergonomics went to hell. Sony should get lots of credit for thinking outside the box just as much if not more than Pentax. It's strange to see such a conservative gigantic corporation taking the kind if risks they are with weird stuff like the A77. They also deserve points for offering cheap fast primes with excellent image quality, even if they are lacking in build quality. If the NEX system had the lens selection of m4/3 I'd be using a NEX-7 as my primary camera right now.
Even if we don't use Sony cameras, we should be glad that they are coming up with new ideas and shaking up the marketplace. I'd like to see a little of the A57 in the new K30 with thinks like a flip-out screen, GPS, in-camera fun like panoramas and multi-shot noise reduction, and the optional electronic shutter.
|
|
Forum: Post Your Photos!
06-04-2012, 03:25 PM
|
| |
Great shot. I love the colors, the framing and the creepiness. Well done.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
05-25-2012, 10:49 AM
|
| |
Well, written. What if we compare the bokeh(s) from the DA15 and the FA77? The DA15 bokehs are angry that you woke them up and they are now ganging up in an unruly mob about to attack. Meanwhile the FA77 bokehs and soft and fluffy and just want to be loved.
I actually like the idea of describing bokeh this way because it is so subjective and it usually is what gives lens their particular "character."
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
05-25-2012, 10:23 AM
|
| |
Let's say that you think zooms are for suckers and you want a compact set of 3 primes without any compromise in image quality. Here's the list of your hypothetical priorities in order: 1. image quality 2. size 3. price. If you can afford a Leica, just get one and go use it and please share the pictures with us.
I chose the lenses below based on a 3-lens prime set covering a 35mm-eq range of about 24mm to about 100mm. The best possible AF lenses and camera were chosen for each manufacturer. The only mounts I actually have experience with are Pentax, Sony, and m4/3, so I may be overlooking some "gems" in the other mounts. Only currently available lenses were chosen and prices are for new lenses only.
Canon ($8,427):
5d mkIII $3500
35/1.4 $1379
50/1.2 :eek: $1499
85/1.2 :eek: $2049
Nikon ($6,758):
D800E $3000
35/1.4 $1599
50/1.4 $459
85/1.4 $1700
Sony A-Mount (APS-C) ($4,712):
A77 $1398
24/2 $1398
35/1.8 $218
85/1.4 $1698
Fuji ($3,546):
Fuji X-Pro 1 $1699
18/2 $599
34/1.4 $599
60/2.4 $649
Pentax ($3,520):
K-5 $1096
15/4 $650
31/1.8 $990
77/1.8 $784
NEX ($2,842):
NEX-7 $1198
16/2.8 $248
24/1.8 $1098
50/1.8 $298
micro 4/3 ($2,736):
OM-D $999
12/2 $799
25/1.4 $539
45/1.8 $399
Canon and Nikon are the only two who offer a full-frame camera (Sony's full-frame options are out of production), so they end up being quite expensive. Those AF f/1.2 lenses Canon sells are pretty drool-worthy, and you could always use them on a cheaper 5d or 5d mkII body. Nikon wins on sensor quality right now, but who cares? Their lenses are good, I'm sure, but they are expensive and there is nothing special about them to make them stand out. Canon and Nikon both include reliable(!) silent focusing systems in their lenses, but no stabilization. Also the Canon and Nikon are both huge ugly plastic blobs.
Moving down the list, we have the Sony A-Mount. Once they start selling the full-frame A99, Sony will once again have a killer set of full-frame Zeiss AF lenses, although they need something decent in the 35-50 mm-eq range for full-frame. Their 35/1.4 does not have a good reputation. Sony gets bonus points for teaming with Zeiss and for in-body stabilization, especially when their full-frame stabilized body comes out. The pellicle mirror and EVF that Sony uses could be a positive or negative for you depending on what you prefer to use.
If you only want primes, then the Fuji is an excellent choice. Amazing image quality, build quality and style out the wazoo and the prices for those lenses are fantastic. Too bad the body is overly large and their AF system is reportedly terrible. Also, if you ever decide you want a zoom, you're out of luck. The hybrid viewfinder on the Fuji is also super-cool. I really like what Fuji is going for with the X-pro 1 and I hope they have an influence on other manufacturers in terms of build quality and prime selection.
PENTAX!!! Surprisingly affordable and the most compact of the bunch other than m4/3. Best build quality (other than Zeiss). Also, I had to leave out some of the other excellent Limited lenses just to keep the list at 3. Looking at this list makes it clear just how much Canikon ass Pentax would kick if it came out with a full-frame camera the size of the K-5 in the $2000-2500 range. Swap that 15/4 for the FA43 and you've got a pretty nice set of full-frame glass. Drawbacks to the Pentax setup are slightly slower lenses and slow, loudish screw-drive AF.
Sony's NEX system is not very friendly to prime-lovers. Too bad, because that NEX-7 is exactly what I think I mirrorless cameras should look like. The NEX lenses are too big or too crappy.
micro 4/3 is knocking it out of the park with their lens selection. I didn't think micro 4/3 would be the most affordable in this battle, but it is and I bet the performance of their lenses and the OM-D sensor would keep up with anything on this list for real-world shooting. The difference in DOF between APS-C and m4/3 is small, but the difference between m4/3 and full-frame is significant. So is the difference in price. Also consider that you could swap out the 12/2 and the 25/1.4 for a 14/2.5 and a 20/1.7 and save another $600 without sacrificing much quality. The m4/3 setup I described above is not that much smaller than the Pentax setup, but with m4/3 you have the option of using a GF5 and 20/1.7 for something truly pocket-able.
Conclusion: Go take some pictures! If you love primes, then you've got a ton of choices for quality, sometimes affordable lenses. None of the lenses or cameras on this list are bad in terms of image quality, so choose based on size, price, and features (EVF vs OVF, IS, etc). There are tons of ways to go cheaper without sacrificing quality by using MF lenses, third-party lenses, used lenses, or a cheaper body.
What does your prime collection look like? Which primes do you lust after from other manufacturers?
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
05-22-2012, 02:02 PM
|
| |
That is caused by aliasing when the photo is shrunk to a smaller size. If you are saving the full-size JPEG or RAW file from you camera and you print from that, you won't see these artifacts on a print.
On your monitor, when you view the photo at any size other than its native resolution (100% or 1:1), you might see this effect on straight lines. The sharper the original image is, the more pronounced the effect. To fix this, you need to pay attention to the interpolation method used for resizing. If you are using GIMP (free) or Photoshop to resize your images, you can select the interpolation method when you resize. There are several options, but anything other than "none" will get rid of the effect shown in your images above.
I attached two images as an extreme example of aliasing. The first one had no interpolation applied when resizing from 3000x4000 pixels to 300x400 pixels. The second used interpolation when resizing to 300x400. The only difference between the two is the interpolation method. No changes to JPEG settings, sharpness or anything else. As a bonus, the interpolated file is more than 20% smaller than the non-interpolated file at equal JPEG quality.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
05-16-2012, 12:07 PM
|
| |
I find it funny that the non-photographer public mocks photographers for using big cameras, taking too long to take pictures, taking pictures of obscure subjects, paying attention to light, doing goofy things to get the right angle, etc while photographers mock regular people for boring subjects, sloppy snapshots, and using a phone for picture taking.
Photographers tend to work hard at exactly the type of photos that most people have no interest in. Most of us nailed the cat photo and sunset photos during our first year of learning to shoot, but as we continue to hone our technique and broaden our horizons, we diverge further and further from what the majority of the photo-viewing public cares about. Think about the shots that your (non-photographer) friends and family ooh and ahh over and compare those shots with the ones you post here or the ones that you are most proud of personally. I'm guessing there is a huge divide between the pictures you've taken that fall into those two categories.
The challenge, as I see it is to straddle that line and take images that can wow regular folk and at the same time offer up some depth to those that appreciate such things. I don't think I've accomplished that yet, but I'm still learning.
|
|
Forum: Post Your Photos!
11-01-2011, 09:52 AM
|
| |
Candid portrait of my wife dressed as an old-timey prisoner for Halloween.
|
|
Forum: Post Your Photos!
07-27-2011, 08:41 AM
|
| |
No, I didn't try f5.6, but I should have. The 15mm is pretty soft around it's edges wide open and the extra depth of field would have helped too.
Seems like a good excuse to go back and try again :)
|
