Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 
Log in or register to remove ads.

Showing results 1 to 25 of 63 Search:
Forum: Post Your Photos! 02-03-2017, 09:42 PM  
Best of 2016 Marine Iguana in the Surf
Posted By BretW
Replies: 3
Views: 956
Thank you.
Forum: Post Your Photos! 01-31-2017, 10:34 PM  
Best of 2016 Marine Iguana in the Surf
Posted By BretW
Replies: 3
Views: 956
Pentax WR in action.

Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II 01-17-2016, 11:14 PM  
K3 Light Sensitivity
Posted By BretW
Replies: 16
Views: 3,216
I shoot in many kinds of conditions, and I am always surprised at the high ISO required to get sharp focus, decent shutter speeds, and lenses stopped down from wide open.

My history as a photographer involves a lot of film shooting in rainforest situations, which are very dark. Even in those conditions I was able to freeze animal motion, hand held with a 200mm 2.8 lens with film that never exceeded 800 ASA. With my K3 and the 60-250 f4 I feel I would be struggling with a slow shutter speed and lens near wide open at 3200 ISO. I know they are not entirely comparable as my 200 f2.8 was a stop faster, with a lot less reach. But still the ASA and ISO experiences are as if from different planets.

---------- Post added 01-17-16 at 10:20 PM ----------


Yes, a rigorous test is a very good idea. Even better if I knew someone else with a k3 that I could test side. But I'm certain that the aperture stops down properly. And no, I don't have exposure compensation on unintentionally. I use it when a scene requires it, and then I restore it.

Everything works right--the pictures are sharp and the metering is good. The sensitivity just seems low, which I agree, seems very unlikely.
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II 01-17-2016, 10:24 PM  
K3 Light Sensitivity
Posted By BretW
Replies: 16
Views: 3,216
Hi all,

Is it possible for a individual copy to be very insensitive to light while talking pictures that are otherwise sharp and well exposed? I find myself constantly forced to use very high ISO settings (3200 and 6400) with my k3, and I'm beginning to wonder if this isn't normal. It remains true with the 100 D-FA f2.8 WR Macro, the 60-250 F4.

Thanks,

Bret
Forum: Pentax Forums Giveaways 01-16-2016, 02:34 PM  
READ ME! Pentax Tips from the Community (55-300mm Giveaway)
Posted By BretW
Replies: 773
Views: 111,701
I find that there are three secrets to shooting animals in the wild:

1. In the long run, what you see is proportional to the time spent in the habitat. Spend the hours and the opportunities will take care of themselves.

2. Be a naturalist first. This doesn't mean knowing what the book says about the creatures. It means watching the creatures so you can see yourself and the world as they do--at least a little bit. Among other things, this helps you get good shots without driving your subjects away.

3. The rarity of an animal says very little about how interesting it is as a subject. For one thing, an animal that is mundane to you is fascinating to someone from elsewhere. Raccoons and squirrels are a common sight in North America, and koalas and kangaroos are common in Australia. If your pictures reveal something, there are many people who will be interested. Common creatures also provide excellent technical practice so you are ready when the extraordinary creature happens across your path.
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 03-28-2015, 10:36 AM  
Is a K-3 with a full frame sensor enough for you?
Posted By BretW
Replies: 58
Views: 6,840
Interesting. I moved from An EOS 1n film body, to the Pentax K3 (with a great many dormant years in between). So I assumed the lackluster preflash performance I see on my K3 was a Canon vs. Pentax difference. But you are quite right, preflash is inherent to TTL metering systems on digital SLRs, including Canon. In that light, I can not speak to the relative merits of modern EOS bodies and modern Pentax bodies. But I can say that my K3's flash metering is terrible compared to my Canon 1n and A2e (circa 1997). I'd be shocked if modern Canon flash on digital EOS bodies was worse than that last generation of film bodies, but I guess we have to leave that possibility open at a formal level until someone who has used both weighs in.

This does raise an interesting question, though. The reason that digital SLRs need a preflash appears to be related to the fact that light reflected off the surface of the sensor is much less than was previously reflected off the film, so it can't be metered in real time. That's good in one way. It means light isn't being wasted and also bouncing around inside the camera. But given the incredible speed and immense amount of computing power now available to designers, why can't the TTL metering be done by measuring the light hitting the image sensor rather than bouncing off the surface? In other words, couldn't the sensor itself report the exposure information as it captures the image and cut off the flash the way film TTL bodies once did?
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 03-18-2015, 12:16 PM  
Is a K-3 with a full frame sensor enough for you?
Posted By BretW
Replies: 58
Views: 6,840
I can't tell you why E-TTL is so much less effective, but I can tell you that is empirically way behind. Pentax E-TTL flash regularly misses the mark and delivers a shot that is either obviously flash-illuminated, or under exposed. Canon's TTL was, in contrast, like magic. It routinely hit the mark, even back before DSLR. And pre-flash--even if it chose the right level of exposure--is obviously inferior for anything that isn't holding still.

Yes, water proof flashguns are nice, but the fact is, I don't trust them enough to get much from the weatherproofing.
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 03-17-2015, 10:33 AM  
Is a K-3 with a full frame sensor enough for you?
Posted By BretW
Replies: 58
Views: 6,840
My photographic passion is wild animals (from insects to monkeys) and my professional life puts me in locations where shooting puts equipment at risk, especially tropical rainforests. I moved to Pentax from Canon because of the weather and dirt sealing of the K3 and WR lenses, and the rock solid construction of the K3 (can't say the same about the construction of the relevant WR lenses, which are mostly compromised by the lack of internal focusing and zooming).

In many ways I have been pleased by the switch, but I was shocked at how far behind Pentax is with respect to dynamic flash metering (e.g. TTL). I assumed Pentax would have something good, with some pros and cons compared to Canon. Nope. In this regard, Pentax is a quarter century behind the competition. For many pros and sophisticated enthusiasts, this probably seems like a minor issue. But for wildlife photographers it isn't, especially in the dark, wet habitats where Pentax should be the runaway leader.

For better or worse, shots from rainforest habitats sell camera equipment, perhaps because they imply the ability to shine in photographically challenging circumstances, so Ricoh/Pentax can't afford to let this slide as it makes its bid to join the big pro brands.

I suspect the lack of a modern flash system will be a deal breaker for many of the customers Ricoh would like to win back--no one wants to adopt a new system that misses shots one would have bagged with their previous brand.

I would therefore advocate for modern flash on the FF, and the next pro APS-C camera too. I'm guessing I will not be alone in using an APS-C camera as a second body. Using it as a dedicated macro-body would be a natural, in my case, but for the cruddy flash metering.
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 01-09-2014, 10:24 PM  
Lens Breathing
Posted By BretW
Replies: 27
Views: 3,479
No worries, I value candor and directness.



I am stunned to hear you say this. Your point about lens hoods makes very good sense. But I'm amazed that having a cheaply-replaced piece of optical glass in front of the organically coated front lens element seems like a mistake to you. I can only imagine that you think it degrades image quality enough to outweigh the danger of scratching the front element, which you must regard as more unlikely than I would think. But I am eager to hear your logic.

For my part, the ability to wipe stuff from the front filter without worrying seems essential. I will wipe my UV filter with a cleanish corner of my shirt, which I would never do with the lens itself. And in tropical forest, I would worry a great deal about fungal spores reaching the front element and getting a foot-hold. Of course UV light is a good purifier, so it is possible that a UV filter increases the likelihood of fungus surviving somewhere within the lens, and that a filter that let UV pass unabated might provide better fungal protection. Thoughts?



I love the idea, and it might well work. I think I have a lot more to gain from your photographic expertise than using you as a pack mule, though. ;) But in any case, I am addicted to introducing adventurous people to the sloppy magic of tropical ecosystems. And you clearly have the special combo of an active mind, eyes that can see, and a temperament that can laugh off discomfort. The particular photographic problem solving would also appeal to you, I suspect.

My wife and I are proposing a program that will go to Ecuador in winter of 2016. That would be the next opportunity, assuming it is approved.



Yes, you recommended that on my intro thread and it has been on my list to acquire ever since (like every thing else you highlighted). Though truth be told, I'm leaning toward the aluminum version. I confess to an anti-carbon-fibre bias stemming from my experience as a bicycle geek. Is the carbon version substantially better in your view?

Bret
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 01-09-2014, 08:41 AM  
Lens Breathing
Posted By BretW
Replies: 27
Views: 3,479
You aren't being rude in the slightest. You are talking the time to pass on wisdom and experiance. That is an act of respect, and I value your input at the highest level.

I also hope you turn out to be right. That DA* 60-250 would pack a lot of punch for subjects I encounter.

Bret
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 01-09-2014, 08:29 AM  
Lens Breathing
Posted By BretW
Replies: 27
Views: 3,479
That's an entirely fair question. Is the value of internal focus and zoom worth the price and design constraint it imposes?
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 01-09-2014, 07:39 AM  
Lens Breathing
Posted By BretW
Replies: 27
Views: 3,479
That's all well and good when the conditions are under your control. In June I was at the Tiputini research station in Yasuni, Ecuador. It is the biotically most diverse location known on the earth. It is, not surprisingly, extremely rich with photographic opportunities, though it may be destroyed very soon because Ecuador has chosen to allow oil and gas exploration nearby.

The forest has 10 species of monkeys (including the world's smallest) that absolutely refuse to stick to any schedule not set by the sun. There is no hot water, a few hours of electricity are generated at the station every day, but outside those hours and away from that spot, the conditions are set by the amazon. In the week I spent there this year, we did not see a single person from the outside world--no plane flew over, no boat passed on the river. It's that remote.

One quickly gets used to putting on the sweat-soaked socks from the day before, because fresh socks will be sweat-soaked within an hour anyway. When you hang your socks up, they don't dry because the humidity hovers constantly near 100% (when it isn't raining outright). As a wonderful consolation, the sweat on the socks attracts an amazing diversity of butterflies in search of salt. It's charming, and gross, all at the same time.

All electronics are stored in a dehumidified building, because any electronics that are not hermetically sealed would fail within days otherwise, but that solution isn't great for optics since glass has a high specific heat, and therefore takes a long time to warm up. When taken into the forest cold, lenses fog instantly. One can warm the front elements in a few minutes, but internal elements are another matter. And the danger of internal condensation killing a lens is substantial.

I never had internal fogging with my Canon L lenses, despite years of rainforest work, because they didn't breath. On the down side, they weren't sealed against rain so I missed a lot of shots while my fancy glass sat in dry bags.

In June I spent ten minutes watching a pair of tyras (giant, social, climbing weasels) attacking a sloth. I was no more than 20 feet from the branch on which this was happening. My Canon gear was back at the station because I wasn't expecting to see anything special, and the weather was not good. It was a once in a lifetime observation. No pictures. Had I moved to Pentax WR equipment before my trip, I would have had it on me and you would be looking at pictures of an event that, to my knowledge, no one has ever documented before. Of course Pentax puts me in a quandary they may not even be thinking of, even as they are thinking 'we are building equipment perfect for rainforest conditions'. The DA* 300 doesn't breath, but it would have been the wrong lens for the tyras. Too damn close. Too much reach. But the DA* 60-250, which would have been optically ideal, is the same price as the 300, and very likely to end up destroyed by internal condensation and/or fungus, in my semi-expert opinion.

I am not wealthy by first world standards, but I am extremely privileged in terms of what I get to witness. I love documenting it, but I have no choice but to do so in disgusting socks--the conditions in which this these creatures remain are inhospitable to people and technology by nature. Like everyone else at the field station, I complain about the socks with a broad smile on my face. I will not, however, smile about a lost lens or three, especially when the solution is well known and involves a generally more robust and desirable design.

I moved to Pentax to solve the rain problem. When I return to Ecuador, I plan to have my camera out and ready, irrespective of the weather. But I can see that vapor breathing lenses are their own kind of liability. Internal zoom and focus are features. Everybody knows it. That's is why the reviews here have a symbol to alert us when a lens has them (just like WR). Those features come at a cost. What I am saying can be summed up in one sentence that is simply true:

If Pentax wishes to design DSLR equipment that will attract photographers that shoot in conditions that DSLRs from Canon and Nikon can not tolerate, then internal zoom and focus should be high priorities on WR and DA* lenses.

Bret
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 01-07-2014, 10:20 PM  
Lens Breathing
Posted By BretW
Replies: 27
Views: 3,479
I don't see in what way this is useful.

Pentax has chosen to pursue photographers who wish to push the limits of DSLR equipment. You can argue that was a foolish choice on their part, or not. But I am within that demographic, and I am passing on some information about how I see the fitness of the system I have just invested in.

I think the move by Pentax was smart. People prefer photos that are uncommon, and one thing that creates uncommon shots is cameras that can be effective in conditions that most cameras can't handle. That is why I am here. On arrival I find that they have done some things right, and seem to have missed some opportunities to strengthen their dominance within this niche.

You want to shift responsibility back to me, and suggest I leave my equipment in safe conditions? Ok. But what's the point? I left Canon to gain the capacity to shoot in bad conditions. WR, DA* and the K5 and K3 are designed for that, but breathing lenses are a problem. They are an argument against WR--they are sealed against liquid water, but they inhale water vapor. The solution already has a name: internal zoom and focus.

Should I not have pointed this out? Should I only shoot things in a greenhouse? Should I go back to Canon?

What that I have said are you disagreeing with?

P.S. Greenhouses may have fungus in them, but 1) they have an exit door that you can take your camera through. And 2) the diversity of saprophytic fungi is orders of magnitude lower than any intact lowland tropical forest.
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 01-07-2014, 09:10 AM  
Lens Breathing
Posted By BretW
Replies: 27
Views: 3,479
No time for a full response just now, but I did want to clarify. I am not talking about liquid water getting in, I'm talking about vapor getting in and condensing to liquid. And that problem will be exacerbated by breathing.

Yes, the best way to keep that from happening in an internally zooming/focusing lens would be to leave it on the body, and I would probably carry two body/lens combos into the forest for this reason (probably 100mm Macro on a K5iis [for $ reasons], and 60-250 on a K3). It would not be not unlike the days of film when two bodies were carried for variable ISO. I would also point out that leaving lenses mounted is implicit in the WR concept under really rough conditions.

And yes, slowly allowing a lens to come up to temperature is good in principle, but in practice a photographer has to shoot when opportunity knocks. That is why I abandoned Canon for Pentax. The benefits of WR outweighed the losses by a large margin (I lost a 70-200L 2.8, 100mm 2.8 macro and 28-70L 2.8 to fungus in a remote part of Madagascar years ago--no electricity, high humidity and amazing creatures are often found together).

My only point was that internal zoom and focus are design features that should have a higher priority, given the niche Pentax has chosen to dominate (rough conditions). Breathing is a vulnerability when coupled with organic (and therefore fungus-edible) lens coatings.

P.S. I know that Pentax has designed the K3 and K5 not to suck in liquid water when lenses breath, but I have not figured out how it works given that rain can put water anywhere on the outer surface. The volume increases rapidly, ruling out the possibility that there is no path big enough for liquid water (like a goretex membrane). So presumably there must be a geometry that allows a droplet sucked in and then to leave the camera while air is sucked past it. But what does that look like? Is it like a kitchen-sink U-trap? A hooka? Anyone know?
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 01-06-2014, 11:34 PM  
Dream Lenses
Posted By BretW
Replies: 22
Views: 2,678
I would like to see a DA* 100 macro and a DA* 60-250 that didn't breath. Long as we're dreaming I'd like them 2.8 or better, and sharp wide open.

My reasoning on breathing as a problem is here
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 01-06-2014, 11:21 PM  
Lens Breathing
Posted By BretW
Replies: 27
Views: 3,479
Pentax has found a niche with bodies and lenses sealed against the elements, and tolerant of cold. It's a great thing. I work in sloppy conditions, with amazing photographic opportunities in them (like tropical rainforests) and so after the K3 came out I jumped ship from Canon EOS and became a Pentaxian. I miss a few things, but mostly I'm happy with the move.

I do have one lingering fear, though. Many of the WR and DA* lenses either lack internal zoom, or internal focus (e.g. 100 macro, DA* 60-250, 18-135 WR kit lens). Since they are water-sealed, but expand in volume when zooming or focusing, they suck ambient air into the body and lens. If that air is dry and spore free, then it is just fine. But in rainforest conditions, I have the sense it greatly increases the likelihood of sucking in a fungal spore that can then grow on internal lens elements.

It is also true that in a lowland rainforest field-station, electronic equipment is (when possible) kept in labs dehumidified with air-conditioning, and the coldness of the equipment causes lenses to immediately fog when they hit the warm moist air outside. That's not serious in an internally focusing and internally zooming lens where the fog forms on the outside and can be wiped off the filter, but in a breathing lens I suspect warm moist air will flow in and condense inside, where it may drip and create all kinds of trouble. In principle one can refrain from zooming or focusing until the camera and lens are warm. But in practice, it will be very hard to know when the internal elements are warm enough.

For the moment I'm going to address this by using a "dry closet" inside the air conditioned lab (a box with an incandescent lamp within it to raise temperatures, and lower relative humidity). But long term this isn't always an option.

So what I'm getting at is this: If Pentax wants to be the DSLR for extreme field conditions, should it be redesigning the current breathing lenses so they focus and zoom internally (like the DA* 300)? For many reasons, those non-breathing designs are likely to be more robust, and thus a better fit for the niche Pentax is carving out.
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 01-06-2014, 10:42 AM  
Stop with the FF sensors will be the same price nonsense.
Posted By BretW
Replies: 196
Views: 15,769
That's funny. Your message hadn't posted when I typed mine, but we both ended up at more or less the same joke.
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 01-06-2014, 10:38 AM  
Stop with the FF sensors will be the same price nonsense.
Posted By BretW
Replies: 196
Views: 15,769
Nomadkng is saying all else being equal, FF will always cost more. That doesn't preclude a scenario in which FF becomes cheap enough to drive smaller sensors extinct, in spite of their cost advantage. Nor does it preclude manufacturers from selling FF cameras for less than aps-c cameras (by cutting corners in places consumers are less likely to notice and/or value).

It's like the old joke, if apples get cheaper the more I buy, how many do I have to purchase before they're free?

Aps-c and FF will approach two different asymptotes of minimum price, FF being a higher minimum.
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 01-03-2014, 06:35 PM  
Focus issue (?) on a slightly used DA* 300
Posted By BretW
Replies: 17
Views: 2,187
I would like to add two things.

First, drpower has behaved honorably throughout this situation. I have no negative sense about him as a seller. I would have no hesitancy about dealing with him. And if this lens (which still has warranty for the original purchaser) were to have its SDM addressed in the way derekkite describes, I would have no hesitancy about it either. The lens is a beautiful piece of glass, barely used, mint and I'm quite confident that whatever is going on with the lens, drpower was as surprised as I was to discover there was an issue.

Second, my experience with the lens suggests that the cat and the clock shots might or might not have caused the clicking issue based on low light and contrast, the other images would have elicited confident autofocus.
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 01-02-2014, 05:34 PM  
Focus issue (?) on a slightly used DA* 300
Posted By BretW
Replies: 17
Views: 2,187
That's very interesting. I can't figure out if it is good or bad news. ;)

I have my K3 set so the AF button on the back suspends autofocus, which amounts to the same thing as I use it--compose with AF then get it to chill out. Nothing worse than having a shot composed, and then having the autofocus get distracted (as the opportunity inevitably evaporates).
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 01-02-2014, 05:23 PM  
Focus issue (?) on a slightly used DA* 300
Posted By BretW
Replies: 17
Views: 2,187
I was on AFS. AFC was near hopeless at this light level.



So this is interesting. If I understand what you have said, a brand new one had symptoms from the start, then it failed, but the repair made it better than it was when it was new.

Do I have that right?
Forum: Site Suggestions and Help 01-02-2014, 04:44 PM  
Serial number DB
Posted By BretW
Replies: 2
Views: 830
Thanks! Probably should have the 540 on the list too...
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 01-02-2014, 04:31 PM  
Focus issue (?) on a slightly used DA* 300
Posted By BretW
Replies: 17
Views: 2,187
Yes, both were on a tripod with 2sec delay, so SR off.

I'm a big fan of fast shutter speeds for long lenses. And I have used a monopod quite a bit in my rainforest work. But with low light something (ISO, shutter speed, tripod when there is time) has to give. I'm thinking that as much as possible I want to shoot this lens f5.6 or smaller, and if hand held, a 300th of a second is risky even with SR due to the extra reach created by the small sensor.

I have read Heie's tutorial. Great stuff. It takes a marksman to crystallize the matter ;)

What I really want to know is if this lens is not functioning well, if the K3 is interpreting the focus poorly through this lens, or if this lens/body combo is less than optimal for moderate light shooting.
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 01-02-2014, 04:07 PM  
Focus issue (?) on a slightly used DA* 300
Posted By BretW
Replies: 17
Views: 2,187
I will try that. Maybe right now...

My impression, though, based on lots of Canon experience, and one month of K3 with 18-135 WR kit lens is that the body should be able to interpret the levels of contrast and light I'm dealing with. The kit lens at 135mm is slower than the DA* 300, so the body has more light to work with. The amplification of my movement could cause trouble, but not on a tripod, and I am seeing the clicking problem on a tripod.

Not sure why folks are focused on the aperture setting, though. That affects the shot, clearly, but should have no implication at all for autofocus. Or have I missed something?
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 01-02-2014, 03:48 PM  
Focus issue (?) on a slightly used DA* 300
Posted By BretW
Replies: 17
Views: 2,187
Thanks. To be clear, both these shots were tripod mounted, and I'm not saying there is any obvious problem with them. I would say they are both acceptable, though I should reshoot at f5.6 and see if others think this copy of the lens is optically up to snuff. My feeling is that the glass itself is good, and my technique is the only issue on that score. The SDM clicking and ultimate failure is the thing that has me worried.

I am impressed that you could get those buffelhead shots handheld, though. At this point, I can not hold this lens that steady, and in general I have been pretty good at hand holding. Or at least I was with my Canon gear, though I never had an effective 400+mm lens for my EOS...
Search took 0.01 seconds | Showing results 1 to 25 of 63

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:08 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top