Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
01-18-2024, 07:29 AM
|
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
03-07-2022, 09:26 AM
|
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
11-06-2021, 08:00 AM
|
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
09-30-2021, 08:06 AM
|
|
A lovely picture!
And the mood is excellently captured. ---------- Post added 10-01-21 at 12:08 AM ----------
Nice 👍
|
Forum: Lens Sample Photo Archive
08-11-2021, 07:04 AM
|
|
I really agree - very nice!
The green leaves have a lovely “glow” to them, and the deep reds in the background set them off nicely.
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
06-01-2021, 07:26 PM
|
|
Definitely more moody now.
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
05-21-2021, 07:05 AM
|
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-05-2021, 03:58 AM
|
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
12-18-2020, 08:13 AM
|
|
I appreciate what you said about white frames - sometimes they just make a certain picture nicer! ---------- Post added 12-19-20 at 12:15 AM ----------
Oh what a great moment! Lovely shot! ---------- Post added 12-19-20 at 12:18 AM ----------
I like the composition, the crisp in-focus detail, and the nice bokeh.
A good monochrome! ---------- Post added 12-19-20 at 12:22 AM ----------
Very nice!
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
11-26-2020, 08:03 AM
|
|
Ha ha - mine too!
Nothing like it! :D
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
02-19-2013, 07:28 PM
|
|
Hi,
Both are excellent.
However, the lenses do have their own characteristic "look" or rendering - the FA 43 Ltd in particular having the distinctive FA Limited lens-family "look", which to my eyes is simply superb.
Compared to the FA50 1.4, I would describe it as having a unique 3D-effect. It also has an incredible level of clarity, fantastic colours in general (including skin tone), and handles micro-contrast supremely well, bar none.
The FA50 has a more straightforward "look" - which is perfectly fine, mind you. Also very sharp and clear, with simply delightful colours that are purely Pentax. In one sense it can be viewed as a more "accurate" or "faithful" lens than the FA43, in the sense that the FA43 definitely does enhance the picture, such that the result often looks better than in real-life. :) Whereas the FA50 can be counted upon to deliver an accurate capture, with excellent IQ to boot.
And if you require stronger background blur, the FA50 might suit you better since it can open up to f1.4. Personally, I seldom need 1.4, and find the f1.9 of the FA 43 Ltd more than adequate - but users differ.
Do note though, that 43mm or 50mm focal length results in one particular style of portrait photography, and you need to first ensure it's what you want. Many portrait photographers also use longer focal lengths, eg. 85mm, or 77mm in the case of the FA 77 1.8 Ltd (the sister of the FA 43), which is truly a portrait lens par excellence!
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
05-12-2016, 11:22 PM
|
|
In reading your post overall, it appears that you like the output from Canon glass. That's fine. It's a matter of personal taste.
But it you really want to understand why Pentax afficianados treasure Pentax glass, you'll probably need to step out of your "comfort zone". As long as one is "locked on" or "tuned in" to the Canon look, it will be quite difficult to begin to understand and appreciate Pentax style of rendering. Indeed, there's much, much more to a lens than mere sharpness, although Pentax glass is certainly sharp alright. But here we're speaking of lens character, of rendering. The FA and DA Limiteds render quite differently than Canon glass. Same goes for older Pentax manual lenses, which are also treasured for their rendering character, even till this day.
Personally, I strongly dislike the Canon look. The 'L' lenses do absolutely nothing for me. Give me a Pentax DA* lens any day, or DA/FA Limited glass, with their signature rendering, or some of the older manual lenses.
You wrote:
"... the 5D Mark III with a quality prime makes absolutely stunning results..."
-> The same is true for Pentax. Leica too. Nikon too.
You wrote:
" ... I have looked at hundreds of photos made with the Canon 5D Mark III..."
-> I too have looked at many, many pictures from Canon. None of them render like I want them to.
You wrote:
"Pentax makes some good, special glass, but it's not on par with Canon's 'L' lenses, or is it?"
-> This actually has to do with our mental perception. The same question can be rephrased, with equal validity, as follows:
"Are Canon 'L' lenses on par with DA/FA Limiteds?"
And if you ask me, the answer is a straight, plain, "No". They don't give me the desired rendering at all, which I get with Pentax glass.
........................
Ultimately, all consumers are free to choose their own brand. There is no compulsion.
But if you do start to appreciate Pentax lens rendering, and you also factor in the extremely high value-for-money that the K-1 offers compared to the others, plus note the excellent sensor performance, well, you may then want to choose carefully..... ---------- Post added 05-13-16 at 04:04 PM ----------
True.
But some points were raised in the original post, which I felt ought to be addressed.
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
05-13-2016, 12:21 AM
|
|
Yeah, I'm sure different folks understand or perceive it somewhat differently.
When i speak of lens rendering character, what I mean is something that's not always straightforward to define, or even put into words, and indeed often impossible to express mathematically or via a test. But it's there, and one begins to discern it after looking at many pictures.
For this reason, there's little meaning with blindfolded "A versus B" tests when it comes to lens rendering. Indeed, lens A under certain conditions may look like lens B. And one can't just take a random shot, and ask, which lens took this? I'm talking about trends, here. After you shoot like 100 and above shots with lens A, you start to see it. More so by 1000 shots. And sometimes there's a "house-look", eg. the Pentax look or the Leica look. And within that, there could be a sub-family look, eg FA Limited look, as opposed to DA Limited look, etc.
That said, some folks honestly don't see anything - and you know, that's perfectly fine!
And some folks do see it - and that's fine too! :) Cheers.
Edit:
1. Needless to say, post-processing can alter things, even removing a look altogether. I was talking more about lightly processed conditions.
2. I have scientific training, and I'm not at all belittling tests and measurements. What I'm saying is, rendering often has to do with stuff that isn't (yet) well defined, mathematically. Things like the nature/texture of a lens' bokeh, or how the lens imparts a 3D effect to the image captured, or characterising the micro-contrast nature of a lens, say.
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-04-2016, 02:49 AM
|
|
---------- Post added 05-04-16 at 06:50 PM ----------
Pentax have officially confirmed that the DA*200 lens is compatible with the K-1 (Full-frame).
As regards purple-fringing, just take some precaution if you're shooting into the light at wider apertures. If it should appear, it's usually easy to get rid of it in post processing.
The lens is sharp, that's certainly true, but more than that, it yields lovely images. Not only that, the bokeh is first-class.
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-02-2016, 02:07 AM
|
|
When I saw the title of this thread, I just had to smile..... :)
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
04-11-2016, 08:11 PM
|
|
What excites me a great deal is the fact that the 31, 43 and 77 can now be used in their intended focal lengths, and captured with a good 36MP Full-frame sensor at that. With the K-1 making inroads into the professional segment, we should be seeing images from this august trio of lenses starting to appear in poster ads, magazines, wedding photobooks, and so forth. The world in general is going to see Pentax. The art of photography is going to be so much the richer for that. I don't mean that in any condescending way at all. I'm quite serious. For a long time, the "look" of commercial photography has been pretty much defined by Canon and Nikon - I see the emergence of Pentax impacting that realm as a good thing.
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
03-14-2016, 11:44 AM
|
|
Congratulations on placing your order!
I find it rather curious to think of the K-1 as a "lite" version of the D810.
In spending an extra USD1k for the D810 as compared to the K-1, what I mainly gain is a more sophisticated AF system, useful eg. for high speed sports, and better video; if those are required. (Even so, the 5fps rate limits the AF's usefulness for fast-burst sports work.)
But, what do I stand to lose in the D810?
1. Pixel shift capability for ultimate IQ
2. 5-axis In-body Stabilisation, for ALL lenses mounted
3. AA filter simulator, switchable, to fight moire when needed
4. Astrotracer capability
5. Flexible LCD
6. GPS built-in
7. WiFi built-in
In my view, it is rather the D810 which is a "K-1 lite". :)
And this is with the D810 priced at 1000 bucks extra!!
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
03-08-2016, 06:25 PM
|
|
When we consider all the talk and concern about lack of lens corner sharpness when wide open, or near wide open, it's important to take a moment and think what that actually means, in terms of actual, real-world USAGE.
When wide open, we're aiming for very shallow DOF, to get a blurred background. We do not require corner sharpness for this.
When taking landscape, street, product or architecture shots, we stop down to get a deep DOF. No worries about corner sharpness here.
In low light, even then we would normally need to stop down a certain amount and not use the lens wide open, otherwise the picture may not be useable, due to the DOF being too shallow. So no issue here either.
When you think about if, there are very few instances when you need wide open, and yet sharp corners (except astrophotography perhaps).
So for majority of users, there's little or even totally zero practical significance whether a lens has not-so-sharp corners when wide open or near wide open. In fact, ALL lenses behave like that, not just those from any particular brand.
In fact, aside from sharpness alone, there are many other things to look for in a good lens. But often the emphasis is excessively on sharpness. And even then, talking about sharpness when wide open. Non issue.
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
03-07-2016, 10:22 PM
|
|
I've used the FA77 and FA43 extensively on K-7 (14MP), K-5II (16MP) and K-3 (24MP).
In all cases, zooming in to 100% magnification always revealed fine detail captured by the lens, even on the K-3.
K-1 pixel pitch is about the same as K-5II, and definitely less than K-3.
Certainly not expecting any issues to arise by using these two lenses on K-1.
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
03-06-2016, 04:28 PM
|
|
In fact, when comparing fps, it seems to me that people often leave out megapixels from the equation, resulting in "apples and oranges" comparisons.
It is not AT ALL surprising if a 24MP camera (D610) has higher fps than K-1, a 36MP camera. Of course.
The data flow rate is around 33% lower for a 24MP camera, so it's only expected and natural that the fps will be higher.
We might as well say the D810 (5fps, 36MP like K-1) is sub-standard compared to D610 (6fps, 24MP) !!! If that sounds ridiculous, same goes for K-1, which is also 36MP.
In fact, if anything it is the 6D (4.5fps) which could be seen as "sub-standard", when compared to D610 (6fps), because both are 20 to 24MP machines, same ballpark.
And again, in comparing the K-1 against D810 we're talking 4.4fps versus 5fps, and that works out to 9 frames in every 2 seconds versus 10 frames every 2 seconds. The difference is just one frame. Doesn't seem like a significant difference in real world usage. Indeed if high fps is what is really required, eg for sports, then arguably 36MP is not optimum, may be better to go for lower resolution but higher fps, eg K-3 (24MP, 8.3fps).
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
02-27-2016, 09:25 AM
|
|
Have no fear regarding the FA43's performance wide open.
In field tests of the FA43 conducted over a period of two decades, the lens at f2.8 returned a strong value of 75 units for "pixie dust magic", with the value steadily increasing as the aperture opened up, finally hitting well in excess of 100 units at f1.9 (wide open), ie. beyond the sensor's ability to resolve. ;)
Lots more to a good lens than just sharpness. :)
Dunno, when wide open, I'm gunning for very shallow depth-of-field to isolate the main subject from its periphery. Never had any issues with central sharpness, whereas the issue of edge sharpness does not arise.
Indeed in this context, the main issue, aesthetically speaking, isn't sharpness per se. The 43 wide open will give you sufficient subject sharpness alright. But here we're talkin' major rendering and "mood"; "pixie magic" time.
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
02-25-2016, 04:27 PM
|
|
I use SMCP DA35 Macro Limited f2.8, on K-3.
I don't do insect shots, and 35mm is a good macro focal length for me.
This lens is excellent for product shots, where you get close up to small objects. Anything from a button to a brick, say.
It renders images with the typical "DA Limited look", deep contrasts, superb micro contrast, and just gorgeous colours.
The level of fine detail is jaw-dropping. It just has a way of extracting fine detail I don't see elsewhere. Macro range bokeh is superb.
I also use it as a general walkabout lens; it's very versatile indeed, and fairly fast @f2.8 (and sharp wide open). Stopped down, the sharpness is, again, just stunning. Bokeh ranges from acceptable to very good. And all this with the "DA Limited look" mentioned above.
Mechanically speaking, it's compact, robust, has Quick Shift focusing, no WR.
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
02-22-2016, 08:04 AM
|
|
I'm impressed at the engineering effort Pentax went to with this, to achieve their intent of making the K-1 more compact.
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
02-19-2016, 05:05 AM
|
|
When I saw merely the title of this thread, without even reading a single word further, I just had to laugh.
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
02-19-2016, 01:58 AM
|
|
There are so many good things Pentax has built into the K-1.
In contemplating the OP question, I realised that for me, maybe there isn't one most "outstanding" feature; I see it in terms of how all those good things come together in one fabulous camera.
|