Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-26-2009, 06:29 AM
|
|
I was under the impression that it was opposite, that the lever closed the aperture.
If you're allowed to handle it, can you just put it on your camera to see if it works okay?
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-15-2009, 10:34 AM
|
|
Those are good points... The more I look at it, the more I'm leaning toward the Sigma.
The 12-24 may very well be my next purchase... but I won't be able to afford a new lens for at least another year or two. :(
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-15-2009, 09:42 AM
|
|
That thought has definitely occurred to me... they're just so expensive! I really don't want to go much above f/4 for a max ap, so that leaves me looking at the 12-24, and I'm up in the $700s real quick.
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-15-2009, 08:24 AM
|
|
The only knock I have against the Sigma is the variable aperture. Not that it's a terrible thing, but I mostly use Av mode, so keeping it constant while zooming would be nice.
As for what I need, I like the kit lens, but I want something:
Wider
Faster
Better IQ
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-15-2009, 07:06 AM
|
|
So no one's gonna disagree on the pentax 17-70? I've been away from the boards for a while, so I've heard nothing about it except the soft above 50 thing. You'd recommend the 16-45 even over the Pentax 17-70?
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-14-2009, 09:14 PM
|
|
Certainly I'm not the only one who has been in this boat, but the forum is telling me that "17-70" is not found, so searching is doing me no good.
I finally have money for a new lens. I've really been loving wide angle, keeping my kit lens locked at 18mm much of the time. But I want something a little wider and better quality. The obvious answer seems to be the new 17-70 SDM, but they say it sucks above 50mm. But the Sigma isn't constant aperture, and the 16-45 is less versatile on the tele end (but better wide, which is nice...)
And I DO NOT have $700 for a 16-50. I can probably swing $400 max, but I was gonna figure out some way to get an extra 100 for the 17-70.
What do you guys think? (Feel free to link to older posts, as I'm sure this has been covered before.)
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
12-06-2008, 06:34 PM
|
|
Not something you can do in-camera. You can batch convert your raw files and add it then if you'd like.
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
10-24-2008, 07:46 PM
|
|
Also, be aware that LCD viewing angle has a lot to do with what the exposure looks like.
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
08-08-2008, 05:56 AM
|
|
Nice. I'm both a K10D shooter AND a Linux user. Unfortunately, I really have no desire to shoot tethered.
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
08-07-2008, 05:22 AM
|
|
Well, i'm just going to live with the lack of versatility so as not to bother changing lenses at all. I'd love to have a weather-sealed 50-135, but my wallet says otherwise.
I guess my main question was, how should I treat the K10D differently than other DSLRs, given that it has a weather-sealed body, even though I won't be using a weather-sealed lens?
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
08-06-2008, 07:04 PM
|
|
I'm going to the beach on Saturday, and I'm thinking of bringing my K10D and the kit lens. Or maybe the FA50... Only one though, so as not to risk changing lenses at the beach (obviously). What should I do to ensure that a few hours of sand and salt have no negative effects on my gear?
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
07-20-2008, 10:15 AM
|
|
Right. And I said it like that because I didn't imagine Pentax ever made a lens as bad as what I'm looking for. I'm thinking Lomo or Holga... toy stuff. And when I said K-mount, I meant to include M42 as well.
I was just wondering if anyone else was into this type of photography and wanted to share their lens experiences.
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
07-20-2008, 07:30 AM
|
|
I want to play around with taking horrible-quality, but artsy photos. Are there any really, really bad K-mount lenses? Vignetting, low contrast, slow, soft, etc. Are there any plastic lenses? Those would probably be perfect.
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
07-16-2008, 06:58 AM
|
|
I don't hove a K100, but there's no Av "button," right? You mean the mode dial won't lock into place at that point? That's pretty strange. Other than taking the camera apart to try to fix the dial, or sending it to Pentax, I think you're stuck. Is there any way you could work around it? Is there a scene mode that acts mostly like Av mode?
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
07-09-2008, 11:19 AM
|
|
Is it really 1000x? As in a 10-stop ND filter? Wow. Yes, you'll definitely need to go with bulb mode for anything longer than 30 seconds, and definitely don't rely on the camera to aid you. If the filter is indeed 10 stops, meter with it off, then multiply the shutter speed by 1000. So if you're getting a 1/1000 reading with no filter, mount the filter and expose for 1 second and that should be correct. But if you're metering 1/30, then with the filter, you'll need a 30-second exposure.
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
07-07-2008, 11:02 AM
|
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
07-07-2008, 10:33 AM
|
|
So who are you jumping ship to? |
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
07-07-2008, 10:32 AM
|
|
Is the 555 a handle flash like the 544? I use my 383 Super much more often though.
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
07-06-2008, 08:17 PM
|
|
It helps to know what OS you're using. If it's Windows XP, Microsoft has a nice right-click resize utility that (I believe) keeps EXIF.
|
Forum: Post Your Photos!
07-06-2008, 05:54 PM
|
|
I'll start by saying that I like the second image. The reddish color and the silhouettes make it interesting.
Now, for the fireworks photos, well, they could use some improvement. First off, shake reduction is properly named. They didn't call it "Miracle Shake Elimination" for a reason. You still need a tripod in a lot of situations. Also, both the photos you posted were shot at 0.6 sec. I'd say you need at least a two-second exposure for most fireworks. Also, the more interesting shots have more than one firework in them, which means an even longer exposure. Basically, you need to mount your camera on a tripod, set it to bulb, turn off long-exposure noise reduction (if you can), and use a wired remote. Time your shutter releases based on how you want the photo to look. Do you want to include the upward travel? Do you want the initial explosion? How many bursts do you want in one shot?
Unfortunately, you won't really have another chance to play around with it until New Year's.
In the meantime, check out my fireworks gallery: Fireworks, July 4, 2008 - a set on Flickr
Have fun!
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
07-06-2008, 12:58 PM
|
|
I can't confirm 100% that it works for the K20, but every other remote does, so I can't see why this one won't. As for the bulb mode, I just tried it, and I end up with a 1/2-sec exposure every time. However, I really can't ever see using a wireless remote for bulb. I have this $5 wired remote. I used it a lot for Friday's fireworks and it didn't miss a beat.
|
Forum: Post Your Photos!
07-05-2008, 08:10 PM
|
|
Unfortunately, my city doesn't start until 9PM, when it's really good and dark, so no long-exposure foreground for me. Actually though, where our family watches, the foreground would just be an apartment building anyway.
So I'm open to comments, but I already know they look like they're from a fireworks catalog. (Which I guess is not necessarily a bad thing.) Here's the full set, and here's a sampling: |
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
07-05-2008, 07:16 PM
|
|
Last night was my best fireworks night ever, photography-wise. One of the best things was being able to turn off dark frame subtraction on the K10D. I figured I'd do the noise reduction in post. But I didn't need to! I don't see a lick of noise in any of my shots. Take this one for example:
That's a six-second exposure. Look at the full version and try to find the noise. Straight from camera JPG, cropped.
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
07-05-2008, 06:54 PM
|
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
07-04-2008, 02:50 PM
|
|
For a while now, I've wanted to take a photo where it looked like my son was driving one of his 1:16 scale toy cars. Yes, I could do this in Photoshop, but I want to do it in-camera.
I finally got around to trying it today and failed miserably. What's the best way to do this? What distances should I be playing with between him and the car, and between the car and the camera? Today, the car was probably about 25 feet in front of him, and I was maybe another ten feet in front of that. I only stopped down to f/11‒maybe f/32 would have done it‒but neither was in focus. Plus, he was still too big compared to the car.
I also only tried with the kit lens. Maybe something longer would help. My only long lens at the moment is a MF Vivitar that's not very good. I may give it a go anyway. The sun's back out now, and maybe I can go all the way to f/32 if I need to.
Thanks.
Joe
|