|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
07-09-2023, 03:48 AM
|
| |
I've been using Photoshop since the early 90's and I have to kinda defend the PS & Lightroom subscription model, I was happy to see them change it as every time there was a major update to PS it was 500-600 dollars a pop and that was just for PS. When I was doing more professional work I spent thousands of dollars on software. I've been paying the $9 a month now since 2013 which has cost me a little over $2000.00 for 20 years worth of PS & Lightroom use and that has included every major update date for both programs, which has been very extensive over the years. Some may think PS as a graphics program but it is much more than that and with the addition of using other software plug ins makes it even more comprehensive. What makes it even better is the ability to work in lightroom then with a quick keystroke combo having the photo open in PS for any refinement lightroom doesn't do.
Are there a few things other software might do a little better? Sure but as a whole they cant compare.
IS lightroom/PS for everyone? No but I haven't found anything overall I've tried any better and $9 monthly isn't breaking my bank account.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 III
07-06-2023, 09:27 PM
|
| |
I had some problems early on, using the DFA 150-450, but I think it was only when I was using older batteries, even when they were near full charge. I too could only recover by power off then on again.
I have since always ensured I only use my most recent batteries, and have not had the problem, so I'm guessing it was the battery, but it may be coincidence.
Cheers,
Terry
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
07-02-2023, 05:59 AM
|
| |
Agree with Sandy above and others who suggest little need for urgency. It's queer to me that there are folks in Pentax land who seemed not to know that Pentax got off the update hamster wheel long ago. And also that having come to Pentax in the first place, feel like their gear is suddenly inadequate because there have been few new releases compared to other makes. Looking more closely at those other companies is instructive, imo. Canon and Nikon waited a long time to get into mirrorless, and now they have so of course there are new mounts and lots of new releases. I'm glad Pentax hasn't done this. Fuji rolled out their apsc lines late, and so again they've had a bunch of releases. And they started over again from scratch with their medium format line, so again multiple releases.
The "breeds like rabbits" line is Sony, since taking over from Konica Minolta. But of course they make the sensors, which means they can drive that car and know what's coming first.
The big deal in Pentax imo is their public embrace of being a boutique maker. I think that's a big deal. And what's come of it? Well, that monochrome camera for starters, arguably the best of its type overall. Kudos all around from outside of Pentax land. Not something they would have gotten from an updated K1. Then there's the film project. Remarkable if they pull it off (I have some worries---they seem committed to some kind of P&S type).
It's a small company shelled inside a larger one that isn't really an imaging or consumer company. We're actually lucky Ricoh's been as benign as they have been.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
07-01-2023, 01:37 AM
|
| |
The era when you had a new camera model or upgrade as often as you change underwear is over. As an amateur I would prefer a cycle of 4-6 years. I think this is realistic. Longer than that you risk loosing customers to other brands.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 III
06-25-2023, 07:30 AM
|
| |
Was I supposed to? I tend to avoid completley submerging my gear. These cameras are tough and well sealed but I draw the line at a full dunk.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-20-2023, 11:31 AM
|
| |
Posted a similar before but size comparison with some other ~21mm lenses. Note that several are milc lenses which should have a size advantage hence the faster apertures I guess.
The DFA21 seems larger than it is due to the built in hood. This is particularly true when the cap is on. For someone like me who prefers tiny lenses it's still borderline to big but considering what it does and on what platform it's an amazing achievement.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 III Monochrome
06-19-2023, 07:40 AM
|
| |
Thank you, and yes, the systems can easily co-exist. Just as my GR3x nicely co-exists with these. Sorry for not reverting earlier, somehow I missed your reply initially.
To be clear, in general I think the AF on the K3iiiM works really well. It is quite snappy, probably often faster than myself focusing the M.
But the focusing is depending on many factors. In candid-situations, especially with low light, right now I would feel more confident with the Leica, simply because I get the focus faster (or at least get close enought quickly) and have 5 years of muscle memory so I will react faster too.
With the K3iiiM, I experience some hunting and even misfocus. In addition, I'm not familiar enough with the camera (yet) to anticipate on how much delay I can expect before focus lock; this seems sometimes inconsistent / unpredictable (possibly also due to user error / wrong settings / ...). So currently I find the waiting till locking focus somehow feeling like lack of control, which makes me less confident for shooting quick candids. Probably getting some more experience with the K3iiiM will level the field, except in low light.
This all is not meant as a criticism, it's just observations. It's very well possible that more experience with the Pentax, FW-updates, etc will level the field. And it should be emphasized it's a camera I really enjoy using.
*EDIT* I noticed that I had not yet mentioned the image stabilization from the Pentax, and the horizon correction. Especially the latter is really really undervalued (or maybe I'm really bad at holding a camera in such a way that the horizon shows up horizontally in the image )
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
06-19-2023, 06:21 AM
|
| |
Incorrect, I know a number of professional commercial photographers that work with Pentax cameras like I do*. Casual pro photographers are too busy struggling with how to price their work and are often too preoccupied with the latest shiny new toys.
FOVEON is sensor technology that is far behind the sensor used in the K-1. The principal advantages of FOVEON is providing enhanced resolution and colour fidelity over bayer sensors is also the source of its greatest weakness: quantum efficiency, which is so bad Delta E goes completely out the window as soon as you go past ISO 400. Pixel shift has its compromises yes, though you can use it at any ISO where you will see resolution is enhanced and colour fidelity remains consistent.
At least Bayer doesn't need pre-sharpened red channels and noise reduction in the blue channel.
*Granted, for sports Nikon, Canon and SONY rule the roost here. But for studio portraiture, street photography, landscapes, macro and astrophotography Pentax has many adherents.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-20-2023, 04:01 AM
|
| |
I was going to do some shots like those :-) The K1 is a bit chunkier as a camera so the longer, fatter 21 doesn't feel "big" - it fits in fleece pocket - I'll put a lens on the camera, two in my pockets and I'm nicely set up
For FF - the DA 21 and 20-40 zoom aren't options, and the FA 31 ltd is a lens I've skipped because I find 28 is just wide enough to start to be useful, but the low 30s is a range that doesn't work for me, so I can't speak to use of 21 on APS-C where it's a 31 equivalent. I can see the appeal of 20-40 (zoom with the mid point around 'normal') DA 21 (compact and light). And the DFA21 is a joy to use (with the pluses from the first post) TBH I notice the silence of the DFA21 and 85 and the noise of the screw drive lenses more than anything else.
I posted some shots of the lilies in my front garden; we had some rain earlier and I was out shooting them again - I'm not a big one for shooting flowers but the 21 makes me want to pick the the camera. You can see in Digitalis' shot of the 31 and 21 side by side that machined ring the both have is to be tactile, where the "pancake" designs pretend not to be there at all. You hear one and feel the other, and I prefer feel to noise.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-19-2023, 07:01 PM
|
| |
I'm not sure how helpful this will be but the DFA21 isn't what I would call an overly large lens, contrasted with the DFA15-30mm f/2.8 which is a brick of a lens.
A size comparison against the FA31mm f/1.8.
The Pentax KP is currently the smallest digital K mount body I own and the DFA21 balances just fine on it, without any ergonomic issues.
 |
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-19-2023, 08:30 AM
|
| |
I expect the DFA 21 to outperform the 20-40 - but it might still be worth buying the 20-40 for cost and weight as well as zoom flexibility. If FF is on the radar then get the DFA for sure.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-19-2023, 08:38 AM
|
| |
I have all three and love them all.
here short thoughts:
DA21/3.2: pro: smallest size – pancake Design
DA20-40 Ltd.: pro: slightly better than the DA21 and more flexible
DFA21/2.4Ltd.:. pro: best rendering and beautifull Bokeh, very sharp and fast AF if necessary
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-18-2023, 09:47 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-18-2023, 10:01 PM
|
| |
DFA21 works very well on APSC, but it is really designed in size and performance for FF camera.
The DA21 is a small lens that fits APSC well. Mechanically and image drawing wise it is more standard than the DFA. 21mm angle of view on FF looks much different to 21mm on APSC.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-19-2023, 04:00 AM
|
| |
Just to clarify something I said above - 21mm ON FF is wider than ideal for landscape shooting - it's the "very wide & pack in lots of stuff but make it small" that I think isn't ideal. The tradition 28 (or 31 ltd) is a better bet and on APS-C 21 gives that view.
The DFA 21 clearly is a FF lens and 21 on FF does some interesting things with geometry and D.o.F. With a 24mm tall frame in FF, 12mm is below the lens axis if you put the camera, level in landscape mode on a tripod 1.2m above the ground (i.e. 50x image height), the view intersects the ground 100xfocal length away, Only 2.1 m for a 21, 5M for a 50, etc. At f/8, focused at infinity everything is in the 21's D.o.F zone down to 1.8m. If you focus at 1.8M the d.o.f zone is arm's length to infinity.
Even wide open, focused on infinity the foreground doesn't go very out of focus with the 21.
So where we can see way into the distance there is usually some interest (or the main interest ) close to the camera. Digitalis' does this with a lot of shots posted above
I did it here Coronation Celebration (DFA 21 ltd demo.) - PentaxForums.com , and to a degree here Cemetery by IR (K1 and DFA 21) - PentaxForums.com
And of course it shouts to us "get down low and use lots of foreground" or "go in close". And the closest focusing distance puts the front element closer to the subject than it would be for a macro shot. Here's an example messing about the garden yesterday. f/4.5
It's close enough to see grains of pollen and too close to have the whole bloom sharp at f/4.5 yet the two out of focus blooms in the background are still recognizable enough to be part of the composition.
As a 31.5 equivalent view on APS-C I think either 21 works as a landscape lens and then it's a question of do you like the rendering of one better than the other, is close focusing going to be a thing. (not sure what the DA focuses to ) etc. On FF I would advise people not to think, wider = better for landscape. I have about 400 pictures from this lens in my current lightroom catalog and none is a traditional landscape.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-19-2023, 05:47 AM
|
| |
With a lens this wide, it would be pretty daft of me not to do this. This is one of the principal advantages of wider lenses, it gives you an opportunity to invite the viewer in closer by using something close and detailed in the frame to draw their interest.
This is a matter of personal taste and also how much geometric and perspective distortion you can tolerate. The DFA21mm is ( In my considered opinion) teetering on the verge of being too wide for landscape, you want to know what I consider too wide: 12mm which is so wide I would consider it difficult to even find a practical purpose for such a wide lens for landscape because of the absurdly wide FOV where is entirely possible to include your own shoes in the image. Some photographers find it very difficult to produce strong compositions with increasingly wider lenses, this is rather common especially with inexperienced photographers as they have a tendency to "crop out" anything they consider a distraction.
 Pentax KP - Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 @ 8mm [approx 12mm FF Equiv.] ISO 100 Hand blended HDR.
I fully agree here, I have used some extremely long lenses well over 300mm for some landscape images. Though the at some point the biggest problem with using such lenses is stability, so keeping your focal lengths short helps mitigate this particular technical challenge.
Pentax 645Z - Pentax67 M*800mm f/6.7 ED + 645 adapter. ISO 3200 f/11 1/1000th
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
06-17-2023, 10:09 AM
|
| |
Make sure you refine your goals for the 2nd body and then carefully weigh the factors - it's easy to get swept up in the euphoria of acquisition of something new. Make sure you really want it and not something else.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 III
06-05-2023, 02:59 PM
|
| |
Mine lights the focus point briefly after moving with joystick. You can push the autofocus mode button on the left to brightly light up the chosen focus point for as long as you hold it down. This can help in bright light.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 III
06-05-2023, 02:47 PM
|
| |
I hope my video may be able to help you:
You Tube
|
src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZiSukXLfgwE?controls=1" allowfullscreen>
|
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 III
06-05-2023, 01:10 PM
|
| |
Mine do light when moved, but it goes dark very quickly, sometimes it would be helpful staying on longer. I have found nothing in the manual to change that.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
05-18-2023, 08:57 AM
|
| |
OK... as promised:
Here's the untouched raw file, loaded into RawTherapee, followed by the 1:1 crop:
As expected with this type and vintage of lens, it's soft and lacking in contrast when shot wide open - but the detail isn't lacking... it's all there, it just needs to be teased out; and that's easy. I enabled RawTherapee's default level of Capture Sharpening, default level of Unsharp Mask Sharpening (set to sharpen edges only), and default level of Local Contrast. No clever fiddling around... No heavy post-processing... just the default values on three commonly-used tools:
 
... which resulted in this:
Looks much better, doesn't it? And the adjustments really were minimal.
BUT, "the lens is horrible wide open without post-processing!!", you say? Well, let's be clear - there are plenty of very modern lenses for various systems that rely heavily on hidden in-lens / in-camera processing to deliver good-looking images - but we don't see how "bad" those lenses are optically, because the processing has already been done before the raw files are produced, and it's baked in. The only difference between them and the FA50/1.4 examples above is, I'm doing the (very simple) processing in post.
-------------------------------
I highly recommend LensTip's 2010 review of the FA50/1.4. Some take-away comments from the review include:
 Quote: Usually the ordinary classic 50 mm lenses are one of the sharpest devices in any system. In the f/4-f/8 aperture range they give results even high-end zoom instruments can only dream about. Quote: The Pentax performs very well here. Some reservations you can have when it comes to the image quality at the maximum relative aperture but every 50 mm device experiences some problems there. By f/2.0 we see the situation improve a lot in the frame centre but you can express still some serious reservations about the edges. Only by f/2.8 we get a very good sharpness both at the edge and in the centre. Quote: the overall performance of the lens should be assessed as good. Quote: Up from f/2.8 aperture the lens generates outstandingly sharp images. By f/2.0 you can have some reservations about the frame edge and inadequate lighting conditions certainly might make some photographers use f/1.4. Doing so, they will not be exactly happy with the results but they can’t complain either because for this price the competitors offer you nothing better. Now, that review is 13 years old, and technology has moved on considerably in terms of sensor resolution and optical design - which is why we have modern, high-performing beasts such as the D FA*50/1.4; but for those who understand what they're buying - i.e. a film-era fast fifty with performance appropriate to its class, and the ability to capture excellent images when used to its strengths - the original SMC, new Classic and new HD variants of the FA50/1.4 still offer good performance at the price. You just have to understand what you're dealing with, the limitations therein, and set your expectations accordingly.
Going back to your suggestion...
... I'd say it looks exactly as I'd expect from an instrument of this class and vintage... and even though its comfort zone is f/2.8 onwards (arguably, f/4 onwards for best results), I say it's absolutely possible to get excellent images from it at wider apertures - even wide open - with little effort, a bit of forethought and very minor post-processing. That's just my opinion, though... Each to their own.
One of your test images - the rose photo at f/1.4 - would be a challenge for many older, fast lenses wide open due to the blown highlights contrasted with darker background (that's classic blooming / fringing territory, right there). Others - the "sun at the front" blue turtle and especially the green eyes, both at f/1.4 - aren't accurately focused (no offence intended - it can be tricky with fast glass, I know). So, whilst I accept you don't like the performance of the lens (and that's fine), I wouldn't want folks considering buying one to think that's all it's capable of...
|
|
Forum: General Talk
07-11-2012, 03:08 AM
|
| |
Hah, they are bad photos, unless perhaps he was trying to achieve this :p
What if he wanted to show these athletes as weird, awkward.. well, human beings. He isn't even from the USA, right? Keep in mind that in the USA people have different standards for photos than in other parts of the world. In the USA it has to be perfect, the person needs to look confident, sexy, healthy, better than real life! In Europe, that is not a requirement - the photo can also be fun, joking, interesting, the person can show emotions, odd expressions.. Of course this is a generalization, but it sort of holds true on a bigger scale. Even film used to be more color-saturated for the American market.
Now, these photos surely aren't something to be put up to show "look how great out athletes are! *start chanting USA USA*", but they can still have a use. They humanize the athletic idols. They can be used in interesting exhibitions, print,.. I mean, think about it, if one of these guys wins a gold medal, what will sell more, a generic portrait where they look the way they look on all other pro photos? Or a photo where they look different, odd, a unique photo.
Meh, the reaction is just more outrage over nothing. "How dare someone show us these people in a way that doesn't make me feel beautiful by association! Hurr durr, he should have taken the kind of photos I would have wanted to take!"
Edit: Oh, and that Rhein II photo.. yes, no idea why it sold for so much (well, the name of the photographer, obviously, but you know what I mean). Ive been to the Rhein and the river/canal looks like that for miles on end, its a shot that nobody else took simply because if you are there, it is boring and bland and you look for a subject (like a ship) rather than an empty wasteland..
|
