|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-01-2015, 06:27 AM
|
| |
From my perspective , a guy without zooms has made a decision. "There are certain shots I'm not going to get, in order to maintain absolutely optimum image quality." You simply cannot carry enough zooms to adequately cover the range I get with my 8-16, 18-135 and 60-250.
SO here's what happens you need 120mm, but you only have 100mm and 200mm primes. So clearly you have to shoot with the 100mm lens and crop. My 60-250 is already equal to what you're going to get with the 100, but now you're cropping 20 %. SO in terms of resolution, you are getting 20% less lw/ph compared to my DA*60-250 image, yet, you are thinking that you're getting a better image because you are using a prime.
I would suggest, you only get a better image with a prime if the best framing happens to coincide with the primes field of view.
Look at the following sequence of images. They are taken within three minutes of each other at 4 different focal lengths at a time when the light was changing constantly. For this type of image, you can have a very short window during which the light is the best. The entire sequences is taken within 3 minutes. Short of having a "boy friday " to hand you different cameras with different focal length primes, I'm not sure how you even accomplish this with primes, and before zooms were good, that's what people did. There is one photo taken in the 22 minute, 2 each in the 23 and 24th and 3 in the 25th. Lens changes would both result in missed images and or lower IQ in most of the images. The images are also shot at 4 different focal lengths. That probably would have extended the time spent a this location and reduced the time I spent at other location nearby.
I hear the "primes thing over and over again... but personally, I just don't get it. There will be few images where a prime gets you a better image where a zoom would. There will be lot's of instances where you end up with no image at all because you had the wrong lens on the camera. And there will be lots of images where the zoom is just as good as the prime.
I always shoot zooms when timing is critical, and primes when i have time to lallygag around and fiddle about... but that is rare. I hate missing a great image, because I had the wrong focal length prime on my camera.
I work from the premise that, the first image I see is not always the best, the first focal length I choose is rarely the one that works out best, often I see an image within an image while taking a photo. I take the shot, and then , if I have time, I look at the focal length to see if one of the primes in my bag will cover it. If it's at 24 for the 18-135 or anywhere on the 60-250, I won't even bother. I've taken these lenses off the camera often enough to know, there are focal lengths where a prime isn't going to ad anything.
My experience would be, if you're shooting primes only, you are missing a lot of great opportunities. You can see there are 3 images in the sequence I looked at, thinking of printing them. How many would there be if I'd taken a couple minutes to change lenses? It's quite possible that the instant those images were taken would have been missed, because I was changing lenses. There is a reason why so many pros rely on zooms these days.
And to top it off, because, I was only 4 minutes at this location... I also got this, at a nearby location.
And this...
and... well,you get the point.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
04-23-2015, 06:09 PM
|
| |
True! I came from a world where everything was controlled. But then I was exposed to a situation where things were just grabbed on the fly. I quickly saw that my very composed shots were inferior to the shots caught by someone who had no knowledge of composition. The emotion trumped all. The primary rule is to create an emotional response in your viewers.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
04-23-2015, 04:00 PM
|
| |
It should say "look at me," then have the aesthetics to back it up as one continues to look at it.
Usually easier said than done. But sometimes we manage to get it.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
04-23-2015, 10:32 AM
|
| |
Like others have said in this thread, I'm about the moment first and foremost. I certainly try to get the 'best' image of the moment possible from a technical standpoint, but if the moment is boring then technical perfection won't cut it. I just try to be ready when 'the moment' arrives, and if I don't catch it then that motivates me to be better prepared next time.
I almost never delete photos. As I grow as a photographer sometimes I'll go back and look at older photos from the archives, for a couple reasons: 1) to see what I did wrong, where I lacked the skill to make a photo work or where I just didn't catch the moment for whatever reason but also 2) to see what I did right. I've come across some hidden gems in my own work that for whatever reason I skipped over or just did not really 'see' at the time. I believe that being able to self-edit, pick out the best of your own work is a valuable skill. And sometimes a shot that I didn't see the merit in years ago, when I look at it now I can see it with new eyes.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
04-23-2015, 08:31 AM
|
| |
maybe it was all those years as a competitive athlete. maybe it's my parents' fault, but when it comes to photography and where I strive to be, regret is not a valid emotion. am I disappointed that in some way shape or form I failed? yes, and so I must do better the next time. that pain when I hit the delete key is the price I must pay for my failures, and the more painful hitting the delete key is, the more poignant the lesson. I dream of the day i can pry the delete key from my keyboard. it's a day i know will never come, but it's a dream nonetheless.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
04-23-2015, 08:10 AM
|
| |
i'll weigh in and say this a "chicken vs. the egg" argument.
as a photographer do I try to capture a "moment" or tell a "story"? if I'm not shooting stock, of course I do. But if it's not up to minimum technical standards it's useless.
conversely, a technically perfect image that has no story or emotional impact is just as useless.
I have sent thousands of technically perfect but boring images to the recycle bin, as I have sent thousands of photos of once in a lifetime moments to the recycle bin. both hurt equally as I hit the delete key.
and maybe that's a good thing, because that pain is what drives me the next time I take out my camera. i'll remember my technical failings or my aesthetic failings and try not to repeat them again. as much as I'd like to say "it's good enough", I've learned "good enough" doesn't make me a better photographer. I struggled with that idea for a few years when I first waded into the murky pool of marketing my images. it took me awhile to figure out what separated (and still separates) me from the true pro's of the photo world. it's consistency. day in and day out being technically perfect every time you press that shutter button, AND it's being at the right place at the right time to capture that moment.
you can't have one without the other. if you fail as a photographer in either aspect it's JUST a useless file taking up space on your hard drive. flog yourself appropriately, vow to do better the next time, and make sure that next time is sooner rather than later.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
04-23-2015, 03:00 AM
|
| |
The difference between Technical quality vs just liking the overall appearance of a shot...?
It's simple. If you like the shot very much (good composition, balance, lighting etc) and consequently you want to print it large, for yourself or selling, whatever, technical quality will allow to do it. If the technical quality is not there, the nice looking shot that you like will look ugly when enlarged.
|
|
Forum: Sold Items
05-29-2015, 10:32 AM
|
| |
What a Bargan! I just got one last week for 50,000 EU. This deal won't last long!
|
|
Forum: Sold Items
05-29-2015, 07:39 AM
|
| |
I will sell mine for 40 k only with free shipment :)
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
05-25-2015, 05:03 AM
|
| |
Why can't it be his dream camera? If it gets him pictures he's happy with and with a level of convenience he wants, what's wrong with that?
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
05-25-2015, 04:52 AM
|
| |
My response is always this: I had a canon/nikon a few years ago, I've been moving up every since.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
05-25-2015, 02:08 AM
|
| |
well, as much love as I have for Pentax, I must respect Canon for their work ! Yesterday I came to my friend's house for a little party and he has a 5D mark II hanging around, I tried it and it shocked me, the image produced is sharp, colors are great and the AF is instantaneous, I took a closer look at the lens, it's a 135mm f2. I saw another lens in his bag, a Sigma 50mm f1.4 and I tried it also, stunning images ! I shot a lot with the FA 77mm (~115mm on FF) and the FA 31mm (~46mm on FF) but the Canon combos is so great that I'm speechless !!!
I can see now Canon is not just popular because of their marketing, they actually have great lens lineup, paired with high class camera. It's very pricey of course ^^
Way to go Pentax, I'm looking forward to your Pentax FF :)
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
05-04-2015, 01:22 PM
|
| |
The best way to think of ISO is an inverse mapping to maximum print size for the gear at hand (obviously dependent on whatever lens+body combination you are currently using).
For example, if at ISO 100 you determine that your gear can make a quality 22"x33" print, then at ISO 400 the same scene might max out at 16"x24" print size, likewise at ISO 1600 it might max out at 10"x15", and finally at ISO 6400 might max out at 4"x6". My suggestion is to simply shoot different subjects at all different ISO values, then print them out at different sizes and see what your gear is capable of (and your tastes will allow). You might find you LIKE the look of noisy images, in which case you can print bigger (and you can safely ignore ISO settings altogether)!
Michael
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
05-05-2015, 01:12 AM
|
| |
Plot twist: Ed IS Pentax marketing :p
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
05-04-2015, 11:45 PM
|
| |
I enjoy watching Ed's videos. At least he has an opinion, even if you don't agree with it :)
When he gets things wrong he is prepared to admit it.....
|
|
Forum: General Photography
05-01-2015, 12:25 PM
|
| |
Once I realized that all my pictures really are bad, this problem just went away :lol:
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
01-12-2015, 11:55 AM
|
| |
(sorry about old news, I didn't see any date....)
Still, Blondy's friend once ate my "Tesla S", which is why I can't show that off either.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
01-10-2015, 04:37 PM
|
| |
That my friend is your opinion. What about those of us , who like this kind of discussion ? If you don't want to participate because you feel there has already been too much discussion on this subject...well...then don't.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
01-10-2015, 12:32 PM
|
| |
You know what I think, that camera manufacturers jumped into the Digital band-wagon a little bit too early. Initially, they could not produce a 24x36" sensor that was cost efficient, so instead they dumped a lower-level APS-C sensor on the market hoping to cash in on the Digital Revolution, regardless of what the photographic community thought.
If they had come out with a FF sensor in the first place then there would not be this argument between FF and APS-C. People would be using their lenses normally as usual. A 35mm would be a 35mm, not a 50mm. A 50mm would be a 50mm not a 85mm. Not only that, the first digital cameras that came out were featureless. They were just a hunk of metal and plastic surrounding a digital sensor.
The good thing is that digital cameras now come packed with features, but that took years to develop. That's why I waited until 2006 to purchase my first Digital camera a Canon 30D.
Fast forward to the future and now we have a bunch of lenses that were designed to only work with APS-C sensors. The Digital revolution not only changed the way photographers processed pictures, it also changed the way they viewed the Focal Length of their lenses. About 75 years of experience was suddenly wiped out.
The Focal Length of these new ASP-C lenses did not really change however. A 50mm lens remained a 50mm if placed on a film camera. What camera manufacturers did was give us a compromise until they could develop cost efficient methods to produce Full Format or 24X36" sensors that would match the recording area of film.
This whole digital ASP-C process took about 10-15 years. A period where hundreds of thousands if not millions of cameras with this new modified sensor (recording area) were sold along with their matching lenses. Looking at it from a Business perspective and the way things have evolved to this point, some camera manufacturers are saying why should they change since they are already making a profit off of these ASP-C cameras and lenses. Producing FF sensors is still a very expensive proposition and the manufactures would just pass this expense down to the consumer.
The way they(business) think is that there are not that many consumers willing to pay $2000+ for a camera. It may not look that way if you visit this site a lot, but in general most people would call you crazy for spending that much on a camera. It's a matter of supply and demand, in the case for Pentax I would say, "demand" predominates looking at it from a business perspective...
|
|
Forum: General Photography
01-08-2015, 10:30 PM
|
| |
Thanks for some coherence and sanity here. With no negativity intended to the OP, this is one of the most fake camera gear evaluations or review or dumbass opinions I've read since Ken Rockwell dissed the *DS. Anyone who makes sports shooting pronouncements based on DxO Marks sports scores hasn't a clue about what matters in shooting sports, much less showing real shots for cred. Another Internet expert. Yahoo.
M
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
01-09-2015, 03:29 PM
|
| |
Here ^ Norm is saying that I (jsherman99) have made good points he can't refute at this time, so he'll take another tack to buy time.
Here ^ Norm is saying that in spite of his momentary verbal paralysis, he's in awe of my insight and my willingness to share.
;)
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-09-2015, 04:01 PM
|
| |
Ricoh/Pentax has a very large section of zoom lenses. If I counted right I see 13 zoom lenses of different grades. Sorted according to focal length ...
10-17mm (fisheye)
12-24mm
16-45mm
16-50mm
16-85mm
17-70mm
18-55mm
18-135mm
18-270mm
50-135mm
50-200mm
55-300mm
60-250mm
I would argue that there are too many. There are, what seem to me, a lot of overlapping focal lengths. I understand that they are trying to achieve different price/performance points with each model. Still, I would wager there must be a way to simplify this but I'm just an armchair expert here. My armchair expertise agrees with you that the line lacks a super ultra wide angle rectilinear zoom. 12mm is plenty wide for sure but Sigma went even wider with an 8-16mm. It's also pretty obvious that their telephoto end comes up shorter than others at 300mm. Rather than make an even bigger lens they decided to make a teleconverter. Now 300mm becomes 420mm. Cropping from 24 MP to 16 MP on a K-3 would bring this effective focal length up even higher to 630mm. Maybe that's good enough.
Speaking of Sigma, let's not forget that someone could build up a complete collection of primes and zooms from their product catalog as well. I count 9 zooms and 12 primes. Their zooms include ...
8-16mm
10-20mm
17-70mm
18-35mm
18-250mm
50-500mm
70-300mm
120-400mm
150-500mm
Primes ...
4.5mm (circular fisheye)
10mm (fisheye)
15mm (fisheye)
20mm
24mm
28mm
30mm
35mm
70mm
85mm
300mm
500mm
I don't mean to come across as being obtuse and mundane by listing all of these lengths but I wanted to illustrate how competitive and crowded the market is for Ricoh. Nearly every imaginable focal length is already out there. You could easily bankrupt yourself building up a kit from Sigma as you could from Ricoh. It seems to me that in order to distinguish a new lens the manufacturer can compete on size, weight, IQ, and speed. As any one of the factors "gets better" the price will always go higher. Could Ricoh come up with an alternative to the Sigma 8-16mm? Sure, but I don't think it will be any cheaper while being better.
And this doesn't even take into account smaller players in the K-mount space like Tamron and Samyang. Yikes! :eek:
So when I think of the lens market in these terms I applaud Ricoh for releasing *anything* new - even a new kit lens like their collapsible 18-50mm. They are up against some serious competition.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-09-2015, 05:18 AM
|
| |
There is potential for endless debate over pixel density, although the pixel race seems to be grinding to a halt at 24mp for APS-C and 36mp for FF. At the low end, lower noise and high frame rates are the obvious gains. At the high end, what is the reasonable ceiling? There is a point at which pixel density exceeds lens resolution, that is, there is no gain in detail capture because available lenses cannot resolve more detail*. There is also the matter of how the captured image is used. If it is displayed or viewed electronically, on a screen or projected, then the available projector/screen resolution is below 2000 along the greatest length and an image file that has more than that is essentially carrying detail that cannot be displayed. If a print is made, the question is: how big? Do images recorded with a 24mp APS-C sensor show more perceivable detail in a print than an image recorded by a 20mp or even 16mp sensor? Consider the "ideal" distance for viewing a print. 16X20 is large for hanging on the wall, 20X24 is huge and intended to be viewed from perhaps 5 to 6 feet back. What is more important: the entire image as conceived and recorded by the photographer, or the tiny details discovered by putting your face up to the print and whipping out a magnifying glass? Oil paintings are meant to be viewed from a distance, and fall apart into brush strokes when viewed close. On the other hand, some old images made with large format view cameras (at least 4X5 and more likely 11X14), especially of urban settings, are startling and fascinating precisely because of the deep detail they record.
There is little doubt that some will agree, others hotly dispute these comments.
*I suspect that 24mp APS-C sensors are capable of recording the maximum detail that can be transmitted by essentially any/all zoom lenses, and also the vast majority of SFL lenses. Making use of greater pixel density would require careful selection of SFL lenses AND always using those lenses at their optimum f-stop.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
01-08-2015, 03:06 PM
|
| |
Sorry if it has been said here, but I don't know why it's always 'APSC vs. FF'... This is a classic 'both and' situation if there ever was one, imho. Never before in my photographic life has there been this big of a GAS inducing possibility! :)
I don't technically need and can't afford FF, but mark my words I will somehow get a k-mount digital FF as soon as possible (with three of my top reasons being FA31, FA77 and FA43... I think it was Rondec who wrote that it's not a big difference shooting them on FF, but I sure like shooting them on film and will enjoy having the option to shoot them at both sensor sizes...)
I also look forward to being able to carry FF and APSC bodies at the same time, and shoot them back and forth in suitable situations...
|
