Liked Posts - Search Results - PentaxForums.com

The Latest

Forum

Cameras

Showing results 1 to 18 of 18 Search: Liked Posts

Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 09-02-2009, 02:04 PM

Low noise benefit of FF vs APS-C equals ... zero
Posted By WMBP

Replies: 240
Views: 47,623

You know where I can get one with a K-mount? I would like it to be weather-sealed and have HSM, as well.

Marc, at some point we run into reality here, no? How big a lens would I have to get to be able to compete with my Nikon D3-using friends who shoot routinely at ISO 6400? You're right, I don't give a darn about the ISO, really, except that ideally I would like it to be as low as possible. But when the light gets low enough, I'm screwed, because there isn't a lens available.

If we're simply saying that an APS-C *can* under certain circumstances take an image that's as noise-free as a full-frame, then I apologize to everybody for having wasted their time and mine. Me, I'm interested in the circumstances when the APS-C CANNOT take as good an image.

Will

Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 09-02-2009, 07:35 AM

Low noise benefit of FF vs APS-C equals ... zero
Posted By WMBP

Replies: 240
Views: 47,623

and

I just read this whole thread. I am indeed interested in the technicalities and I do my best to understand them. I want to understand them better than I do.

But the comments above from deadwolfbones and Wheatfield strike me as valid and important. deadwolfbones's quip reminds me of the old joke, "Who you gonna believe - me or your lying eyes?"

And Wheatfield's comment really speaks to the point for me. My Pentax DSLRs produce dramatically less noisy photos at, say, ISO 800-1600, than those that I used to take with my Canon S5 IS several years ago. And like deadwolfbones, I've seen pictures from Nikon D3's taken at absurdly high ISOs that rival or surpass mine at ISO 1600. I don't care to "normalize" the comparisons, since I'm not interested in the technicalities personally, I'm only interested in the results available from real cameras in real shooting situations. I understand - I consider it quite obvious - that, in order to get the noise advantage of a given camera, you have to take the camera as a package. A Nikon D3 is a lot bigger than my old Canon S5 IS and there are tons of other technical differences. That's okay. What would matter to me (if I had a D3) is that I can actually take usable pictures with a D3 in much lower light than I could with any point and shoot. Perhaps I'd lose a little depth of field in some shots, but I'd get the shot.

Now, I hasten to add that I am not wracked with full-frame envy. I would love someone to GIVE me a D3X or even a lowly D700. If somebody wants to give me a digital Hasselblad, I'll take that, too. But in the real world where I actually have to BUY my own cameras, everything I do is a compromise, and I'm pretty happy with the compromise represented by the K20D. A Canon 5D might have 1+ stop better high ISO performance, but the Pentax has built-in shake reduction, so I can shoot slower and still hope to get a usable result. Where the Canon or a Nikon is plainly superior in technical ways, I have to work a little harder. And perhaps, in extreme lighting conditions, there will be times when my results won't be as good as those of a much more expensive camera.

But the lighting isn't extreme most of the time, and in the vast middle ground, I find that it's very hard to tell if a photo was taken by a K20D or a D3X.

Woops, there I go again, believing what I see. ;-)

Will

Forum: Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 05-18-2007, 01:54 PM

which remote for the Pentax K10D?
Posted By WMBP

Replies: 39
Views: 26,329

Well, what a surprise: Wolf Camera comes through. They had two in stock at $30 US. Drove right over, picked it up, and it works fine.

For those who are curious about this because they don't have the remote themselves already: The remote itself very small and very simple; it has nothing on it but a single, small button. Apparently there's a battery inside and nothing to configure on the remote. ON the K10D, there are two things to configure. First, you have to hit the Fn button and change the drive mode to one of the two wireless remote settings (instant, or 3 sec delay). That's required; the remote doesn't trigger the shutter otherwise. The other thing you do in the camera is optional: hit the Menu button, go to the C (custom) menu, go to about the third page of options to find "AF in remote control" and tell the camera whether you want it to focus automatically when you trigger the shutter via the remote.

Oh, and the remote does indeed fit inside the K10D grip very nicely.

Anyway, I'm a happy camper now. Thanks to everybody for the quick help.

Will

Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 04-11-2007, 08:12 AM

TAV mode is so cool!!!
Posted By WMBP

Replies: 3
Views: 7,268

I don't think you understand TAv or why we like it. It's not a replacement for M for use by lazy shooters. It is, in fact, the perfect solution to a certain photographic problem - and using M would, well, be stupid. That is why the Pentax engineers included it on the mode dial - while at the same time eliminating the scene modes.

When I'm shooting a basketball game or volleyball game, I'm in gymnasium that is badly lit. The lighting is not great anywhere, but it also varies - there are bright spots on the court and less bright spots and these spots are usually just five or ten feet away from one another. Now, I want the following:

1, as fast a shutter as I can get
2, as low noise as I can get

Of the two, 1 is more important than 2. I draw upon my experience to know what will work for starters. To get the shutter to a satisfactory speed (180s or 250s), in TAv, I open the lens up all the way to f/2.8. I set the shutter to a speed that seems to work most of the time for the particular gym. I then let the camera automatically figure out what's the lowest ISO that will work. Works perfectly.

M in this situation would simply not work - or certainly wouldn't work as well. At a typical game I might shoot 300 pictures. The action is fast and the subjects move around. In a space of five seconds, I might need three different exposures. There simply isn't time to keep adjusting the ISO or the shutter manually.

Will

Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 08-02-2010, 04:56 PM

"Pros" talking trash about Pentax?
Posted By WMBP

Replies: 321
Views: 65,067

Right, especially not with one of the guests!

As a Pentax-using wedding pro myself, I get the "Why Pentax?" question occasionally, from guests. Generally speaking I do not have time to jawbone with the guests about camera equipment, but if there's a lull in the action I may exchange a few words on the subject. First thing I try to do is guess the motives of the person asking the question.

Normally the questioner is a normal, sensible amateur who knows they don't know a lot about photography and who asks their question out of sincere curiosity. They have a Canon XSi or a Nikon D5000 or something like that because that's what the person at the camera store told them to buy, and now they see the pro using Pentax and they wonder. I deal very gently with this sort of question, reassuring the asker that there are NO bad bodies on the market these days and they have a fine camera. This makes them happy. If they continue to ask why I use Pentax, I'll point out that I am personally very fond of shooting with primes and that Pentax has a unique line-up of superior-quality prime lenses. I may have to explain what a prime lens is. If I happen to have the 21 or 40 or 70mm lens on one of my cameras at the moment—which I probably do—this helps me make the case, because these lens do NOT look like the lenses that amateurs have for their cameras. I might also mention weather-sealing, etc.

On the other hand, occasionally the question is asked by Uncle Bob, the stock broker who brought his D3s with the 70-200 f/2.8 lens and who KNOWS he has the best camera in the world, because he knows that he paid a fortune for it. The only way to deal with Uncle Bob is to compliment him on his camera and possibly express a little envy, both of which I can do sincerely. This makes him happy. If I can't get away at this point, I may go on to explain that his camera's low-light, high-ISO advantage matters to me only 10% of the time in my work, but that even then, my fast primes partially give me a one-stop advantage that at least partially compensates for the smaller sensor, and that I can do pretty well at least up to ISO 2000, especially with the fantastic advances in noise reduction in Lightroom 3, blah blah blah. Uncle Bob at this point is probably trying to get away from ME.

If not, I might add that processing 1000 images that are 20+ MB in size is a huge and unnecessary hassle that would add hours and hours to my work load after the wedding. (I really try NOT to take 1000 images at a wedding, but Uncle Bob doesn't know this and is almost certainly the kind of person who would be impressed by a larger number. Uncle Bob likes large.) I may also defend my choice by pointing out that, in my line of work, it's imperative for me to have multiple bodies and a large arsenal of lenses, not to mention flashes, etc., so I am unable to sink my budget into a single camera; and I would add that Pentax has the lowest-priced weather-sealed bodies, etc. Uncle Bob can appreciate thrift, even if he doesn't practice it himself.

I probably do NOT throw in the bit about the prime lenses because Uncle Bob is almost certainly not going to understand this. For him, the sheer size of his camera and its lens are symbols of his own virility, so showing him my own little wee-wee may simply invite his ridicule. I have to assess this carefully.

I keep thinking that I need to answer this question on my blog. Then I can give the questioner a business card and invite them to check out the post, and excuse myself.

It's an occupational hazard. Generally speaking, I try to avoid getting into conversations with the guests. No good can come of it.

Will

Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 04-30-2010, 12:18 PM

What mode do you shoot in?
Posted By WMBP

Replies: 37
Views: 5,334

Nope, it doesn't have any more modes than any other camera. Not really. An icon on the mode dial does not a mode make. The scene "modes" (like landscape, portrait, macro, fireworks, whatever) are not really modes, they are simply mode PRESETS. They put the camera into one of the basic modes, and secondarily they set a key setting for you. For example, sports mode probably puts the camera into shutter priority AND sets the shutter speed to 1/500th sec or something like that. Not a special mode: You could do the same thing yourself in Tv mode and indeed WOULD do it if you knew how to use your camera.

I'm usually a very even tempered and reasonable person. But scene modes annoy me.

Anyway, what are the REAL exposure modes? There are basically only four:
You control the aperture and the camera figures everything else out

You control the shutter and the camera figures everything else out

You control the ISO and the camera figures everything else out. Personally I find this one incomprehensibly bizarre, but it's a logical possibility.

You control everything.

It's slightly messier than that, because there's the possibility of using auto-ISO. But those are the basic ideas. There are three basic settings: shutter, aperture, and ISO. So there are four basic modes: you give one of the three settings priority, or you take charge of all three of them.

NOTE that, on the higher-end Pentax DSLRs (the K10D/K20D and the K-7), hyperprogram (P) and hypermanual (M) are NOT REALLY DISTINCT MODES at all. These features simply give you access to something that is otherwise a little harder to get to. Normal P on my K20D works like P on the K-x: the camera figures the exposure. The only difference on the K10D/K20D & K-7 is that you can turn the rear e-dial and go into effective Av mode. If you don't turn the front or rear e-dial, you're in P mode plain and simple. In other words, the hyperprogram feature on these cameras isn't a separate mode, it's just a shortcut to Av or Tv. In the same way, what makes M mode "hypermanual" is simply the green button, which makes it possible to have the camera set the shutter and aperture for you quickly, as if you were in P. The ability to lock the exposure in M and adjust both settings by moving one dial is simply another convenience—although if you use M like this much, it's very like being in P mode.

This is a difficult question for me to answer, because over the last four years I've gone back and forth a bit. What I want, when I'm shooting, is control. And to have control, I have to have awareness.

For a long time, I shot only in M.

And then in mid-2008, I discovered hyperprogram (P) on my K10D/K20D cameras. This is a brilliant idea. In P, with the help of the EC (+/-) button, I can control the exposure just about as fully as I can in M, and it's easier and quicker and—most important perhaps—the change of me totally blowing an exposure is lower. I was so used to shooting M that it took me a while, and several false starts, before hyperprogram (P) clicked with me. And then I shot mostly in P for over a year, starting (I think) in late 2008 and extending through most of 2009.

So now I'm back shooting M again.

I'm actually not terribly happy about this. I liked hyper-P, once I got used to it. And I really wish that the camera could figure out my exposure with only a little guidance from me.

The problem is, it just can't. P works pretty well a lot of the time, but it breaks—gives me an unexpected or apparently inconsistent result—so often that, for me anyway, using M turns out to be easier. I'm fully aware that this is a personal thing.

In P, even if I'm using it as effective Av by setting the aperture manually and even if I'm riding the +/- button, I get goofy exposures that I don't expect, because I point the camera at something reflective for a second, or because I tilt the camera a little and suddenly get more sky affecting the camera's meter than there was a second earlier. I tried using AE-L in P mode, so that once I had the settings the way I wanted them, I hit AE-L and recomposed my shot. That worked. But at that point, what I was doing in P was MORE COMPLICATED than just working in M. In other words, in P I had to
Set my aperture with the rear e-dial

Look at the scene and make a guess about the necessary EC, then hold down +/- and turn the rear e-dial to adjust EC

Hit AE-L to lock exposure

In other words, I'm frequently turning THREE dials. But in M, I usually only have to mess with 2 dials.
Set aperture—this is a given based largely on a guesstimate or (sometimes) a precise calculation regarding depth of field

Set shutter, keeping an eye on the meter in the finder and moving shutter until the meter's where I want it

Of course, I could skip the third (AE-L) step in P mode. But then I really do NOT have the complete control in P that I get in M. If a constantly fluctuating shutter speed actually meant that my exposures were BETTER, I'd be fine with it. I'm a results-oriented guy. But they're not. So my choices are, shooting in P and deal with some inconsistency in exposures that's a result of the camera's reacting to things that I don't think it should react to; or shoot in M and accept the fact that I'll screw up an exposure now and then.

I'd rather blame myself than the camera.

There are two other differences between hyper-P and M that matter to me.

Shooting in hyper-P requires thinking in terms of EC, constantly. In M, I just put the aperture and shutter where I want them—watching the meter reading, of course—and I'm done. I almost got used to thinking in terms of EC. But there's something very abstract about it. It involves some mental math that I would rather not do. It's like having to add two weights together routinely, and you get one of the weights in pounds and the other in kilograms. I would have to translate the Kg value to pounds constantly. This is like interpreting the shutter in terms of EC. How much easier to add pounds and pounds—or on the camera, simply to know that this shot requires an aperture of f/4 and a shutter of 1/300th sec!

Secondly, when you start doing a lot of flash work, especially off-camera flash with radio triggers, you pretty much have to do everything manually, both on the camera and on the flashes. I could switch from M mode to P depending on the circumstances, and I know photographers who do. I respect their ability to do that. For me it's easier to work just one way so at the moment I'm back doing everything in M. I do blow an exposure every now and then. On the other hand, M slows me down just a little, makes me work more deliberately, and I think I am also getting more really good exposures.

On a side note: I'm just about ready to abandon auto-ISO.

You aren't DOING anything wrong. What's wrong is that you don't understand what you're doing. :-)

As you change the aperture, the shutter adjusts, so the EV stays the same. But exposure value isn't all there is! Changing the aperture changes the depth of field.

Will

Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 08-06-2009, 01:35 PM

focus with zoom, then change focal length?
Posted By WMBP

Replies: 21
Views: 11,008

Lori,

Give it a try, you might like it.

I shoot weddings and other similar events (Catholic Confirmations and First Communions, etc.) and often have to shoot in low light. Using AF to focus means that I can focus once, and if I don't move, I don't have to keep focusing. And this helps a lot because in low light the camera sometimes has trouble locking focus. I started using the AF button last year after missing a number of shots at a First Communion due to the camera's autofocus kicking in unnecessarily and getting confused. It might lock focus quickly on a girl wearing a white dress with flowers on the front, but when a boy with a dark suit stepped to the same spot the camera wasn't sure where the focus was.

Using AF button to focus has other advantages most of which comes simply from the fact that I now focus more deliberately, more purposefully. Out of focus shots were never a huge problem but I am sure I get even fewer now than I used to.

The ONLY drawback is when I lend the camera to a stranger who has kindly volunteered to take a photo of my wife and me, say, while we're hiking or something. Everybody expects focus on half press, and I have to quickly explain, no, press AF to focus, then press the shutter to take the photo.

Will

Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 09-02-2009, 02:47 PM

Low noise benefit of FF vs APS-C equals ... zero
Posted By WMBP

Replies: 240
Views: 47,623

Well, I'm hanging in here (much to everybody's chagrin, no doubt) because I'm TRYING to understand what's being said. And I'm doing that because I too feel that I would like to be able to grasp all this better. And if the end result is that I feel even better about having my Pentax cameras and less envious of my full-frame friends, well, that's gravy.

But I'm still struggling with a conflict between the theory and math, on the one hand, and the reality I know on the other. I know that full-frame bodies are bigger, and that they're bigger in part because they have somewhat bigger sensors in them. I'm actually quite content with the size of the K20 + grip and while I would probably go to FF if I had $20K in spare change lying around, I don't, so I won't, and even if I did, I would not expect my photos to be much or any better most of the time.

But the lenses? This Nikon 50 f/1.4 doesn't look any bigger than my Pentax 50 f/1.4:

Nikon D3 Lenses

Is your point that this Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 is technically comparable to the Pentax 50-135 f/2.8, but that the Nikon WEIGHS 5 lbs while the Pentax weighs only 3 lbs? For what it's worth, the Nikon weighs only a little more than 3 lbs if you take off the tripod collar. The lenses are comparable in width - the Nikon's 3.4 inches, the Pentax 3 inches. The Nikon is of course LONGER (8.5 inches vs 5 inches) but them's the breaks with longer focal lengths, I guess.

Anyway, so here we have a Nikon lens, specs similar to the Pentax lens, both f/2.8. I'm pretty sure I'd get better results from the Nikon lens mounted on a D3 than I get with the Pentax lens.

The problem for me is that the D3 costs $5K and this Nikon 70-200 VR lens costs almost $2K.

It seems to me that the difference in the SIZE of the lenses is less of an issue if you tend to shoot things that are closer....

Will

Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 09-14-2010, 04:07 PM

K-5 rumors false!
Posted By WMBP

Replies: 260
Views: 59,746

Sigh...

Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 09-12-2010, 11:54 PM

Flash: The bigger, the better?
Posted By WMBP

Replies: 39
Views: 7,699

Here are two basic principles.

First, look for a hot-shoe flash with a head that can both tilt (up/down, or if you prefer to think of it this way, back/forward) AND swivel (left/right). Some less expensive flashes can only tilt and this makes them MUCH less useful for bouncing. I probably bounce off walls as often as I bounce off ceilings.

Second, make sure that the flash you buy supports Pentax's P-TTL wireless optical triggering system. This will make it possible to place the flash somewhere off the camera, and trigger it using your camera's pop-up flash as a controller. (The pop-up emits a control pulse that triggers the remote flash.) This is VERY useful.

The 58 is terrific—the best flash unit available for the Pentax DSLRs, I think. Certainly the most powerful. But the 48 is supposed to be quite good too and is almost half the price. Never used it myself but I've read about it. Don't know anything about the 36 at all.

Not sure but I think there are several possible confusions here.

The relationship between size and weight, on the one hand, to power or reach, on the other, is a rough one. Nearly all of these flashes weigh about the same thing, because the most significant part of the weight of a flash is the batteries, and they pretty much all take 4 AAs. There may be differences in size, but once again, if you want to bounce, then having a flash that can both tilt AND swivel will be very useful, and that means you probably cannot get one of the very small units.

Check out its guide number and see if you can figure out how to interpret that.

And remember that the distance that matters isn't the distance of the camera to the subject: it's the distance that the light from the flash has to travel to reach and illuminate the subject. You might be 3 meters from the subject, but if you're bouncing off a ceiling, the light has to travel 5 meters, or 6, or whatever it might be.

Moreover, it's not a simple matter of distance. More power is almost always a good thing. You can dial it down, but you can't dial it up beyond its capabilities. I've had to bounce of barn ceilings at wedding receptions: I was glad then to be using the Metz 58 AF because I needed that extra power.

*

Now, the truth is, you really won't know what you need for sure until you buy something, work with it, and find out if it works okay for you. With the caveat stated, my advice would be as follows.

Buy Metz (48 or 58) or Pentax (360 or 540). The only other brand I'd consider is Sigma, which a number of folks here have said good things about.

I'd buy as much flash as I could afford, that is, if you can afford the Pentax 540, get that rather than the 360. (I don't think the 360 can swivel but I might be wrong.)

I will warn you also that a fairly significant number of people (including me) have had problems with the build quality of the Pentax 540. I've had TWO of them get stuck in the hot shoe on me. It's not a common problem, but it's not exactly rare, either. (Check out Google.) I don't plan to buy any more flashes from Pentax, at least not until they release a new model.

*

I just checked the guide number for the Metz 48. It's 48m at ISO 100 and a focal length of 50mm. This tells you the distance the flash can reach, at that ISO and that focal length or field of view. The Sigma 530 is a little more powerful and costs a little less. (I'm looking at prices on Amazon.) I am pretty sure that both of these models can tilt AND swivel and both also support P-TTL. The Pentax 360's guide number is about the same as the Metz 48, but the Pentax is more expensive AND it doesn't swivel.

So, if I were making the choice for myself, I'd go with the Sigma 530 or the Metz 48. How do you decide between those two? Somebody else might weigh in here in a way that will help you out. I will say that the one drawback of the Metz 58 AF is that the UI is, well, downright odd. I've practiced with my Metz 58 so much that I'm able to get it to do what I want effectively when I'm working, but I had to STUDY the users guide and I had to practice. If the UI on the 48 is the same as the UI on the 58, and if somebody here is able to say that the Sigma flash UI is more user-friendly, then that might be a good reason to go with Sigma.

Will

Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 08-01-2010, 12:14 AM

Why not 18-250mm?
Posted By WMBP

Replies: 12
Views: 2,466

Good choice.

No.

I've owned both the Tamron and Pentax versions of this lens. Both were at least as good as the kit lens in the 18-55 range and everywhere else. For "normal" use, for what I imagine to be YOUR use, these are quite decent lenses. They may save you some money, will certainly save you the hassle of carrying 2 lenses around, and they will also keep you from having to worry so much about dust.

Now, having said that, I'll say something that I've said on this subject before. Buying a DSLR, that is, a camera whose raison d'être is, in large part, its ability to take different lenses, and then slapping a superzoom on there and leaving it there, seems somewhat to defeat the point. I mean, for personal use now I have a Panasonic FZ35, which has a zoom range that's even greater than the 18-250. (The FZ35's zoom range = 18-324, in Pentax DSLR equivalence.) And the FZ35 shoots raw and takes photos that are just as good as those I got with my 18-250 on a Pentax K20D, at least much of the time. It's a fact of life that cheaper cameras can, especially when the light is good, take photos as good as or very nearly as good as the photos you'd take with a bigger, more expensive camera. This works both ways. I take comfort in the fact that my K20D takes photos that are as good as those taken with, say, a Nikon D700, at least about 85% of the time.

Here's a photo taken with the FZ35. The shot would not have been better if I took it with the K20D and the Pentax 18-250.

If the light gets low, the DSLR will smoke the fixed-lens camera, because the latter's pictures are pretty noisy once you go much over ISO 200. But the truth is, I very seldom shot with the 18-250 in bad light.

But that's playing devil's advocate. There IS a reason—there are many reasons—to buy a DSLR instead of a compact camera. The ability to use interchangeable lenses is one of the most important of those reasons, if not THE most important advantage of SLRs and DSLRs; but it isn't the ONLY advantage. Under no circumstances will your K-x take WORSE photos than you could get with a high-end compact camera, and in some circumstances it will take better photos. And then there's the fact that K-x is a far superior picture-taking tool.

So don't worry about it. Get the 18-250 and enjoy it. I will predict that, after a while, if you enjoy taking photos with the K-x, you will start to think about buying lenses with smaller zoom ranges and just a little better technical image quality. Or you might even think about buying a prime lens or two. But that can come down the road. In the meantime, a K-x with an 18-250 lens offers a combination of versatility and image quality that is very hard to beat with anything else.

Enjoy.

Will

Forum: Photographic Technique 06-09-2010, 09:02 PM

Lens or sharpening post-processing
Posted By WMBP

Replies: 11
Views: 3,146

Yusuf,

This is not really a question. It's like asking, if you're about to take a trip in your car, would I prefer to have gas in the tank or good tires? You want both.

Good lenses provide better captures. Better captures can be sharpened more effectively in post. You CANNOT take a lousy, soft, unfocused original and turn it into a sharp photo that looks like it was taken with a great lens. Can't be done. Software sharpening produces the best results when the original photo was taken with a GREAT lens. Good lenses are always the best investment you can make.

Nevertheless, some sharpening in post-processing is also almost always necessary.

By the way, I finished reading Fraser and Schewe's Real World Image Sharpening... I think the book could have been cut to about half its published length. Nevertheless, the info in there is excellent and I can recommend it. I feel like I finally understand what the heck I'm doing with the sharpening (and noise-removal) tools in Lightroom 3.

Will

Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 05-28-2010, 09:16 AM

New Pentax body?
Posted By WMBP

Replies: 323
Views: 65,800

There's no question that 36x24 has some advantages over APS. We can disagree about how significant the advantages are, but there is no disagreement that the advantages are there. Some who apparently have not read what I've said here seem to think I am saying 36x24 has no advantages. Not what I said at all.

But just as, in certain respects, APS > point & shoot, and 36x24 > APS, so medium format > 36x24. Yet the clamor is for 36x24 rather than medium format. Why? I think the answer is obvious: Price. Medium format is VERY expensive. Most of us can't imagine paying that much money for a camera. So we don't even dream about it.

36x24, on the other hand, seems almost affordable, almost within reach. So people here keep talking about the price point at which they'll buy: They'll buy if Pentax releases a 36x24 for less than $2000, or for less than $1500, or whatever. If Pentax releases a 36x24 camera for less than $1500—and assuming the reviews indicate that it's a good camera (which I expect would be the case)—heck, I'll give very serious thought to buying one myself.

Time will tell, but personally, I think this is VERY HIGHLY UNLIKELY. The Sony Alpha A900 right now (5-28-2010) seems to be the cheapest 36x24 camera, and it is just under $2000 for the body only, on Amazon.com. Nikon D700 is selling for about $2300 today, body only; and the Canon 5D MkII can be picked up for about $2500. My guess is that, in the USA, $2000 is the pricing floor for these cameras—that we should not expect to see new cameras selling for much less than that, at least not for a couple of years. And even if the price of 36x24 does come down, oh, in 2012 or so, the price of APS is likely to have come down a fair bit, too. Imagine being able in 2012 to buy an APS camera that is much better than the K-7 for a brand-new price of, oh, $800. I'll bite and spend the difference on lenses.

The video supposedly showing the benefits of 36x24 (referred to above more than once) estimates the full-frame systems to cost about THREE TIMES more than comparable APS systems.

The point is, any comparison of APS with 36x24 that ignores price, is just fantasizing. (Or, if the comparison is being made by somebody who has already spent the money on a 36x24 camera, then it's self-justification.) The bigger formats provide superior results in some situations. But you really pay a lot for those small improvements. To some photographers, it's worth it. But I think a lot of people buy stuff because they THINK it's superior, when perhaps what they should have done is learn how to take better pictures with the camera they already have. My guess is that about 70% of the people using DSLRs would be better served by a high-end fixed-lens camera. I don't mind them buying DSLRs, though, because it helps keep the costs down for me.

Ditto.

Will

Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 05-26-2010, 10:03 AM

New Pentax body?
Posted By WMBP

Replies: 323
Views: 65,800

I don't have any authoritative figures handy, but I feel pretty confident that about 98% of the people buying new digital cameras are NOT planning to use old 35mm film camera lenses on them. Compatibility with film SLR lenses was a transitional advantage for DSLRs. I think we are WAY beyond that now.

The APS-C sensor may have been a compromise, to save money. But so was the original idea to let digital SLRs use the same lenses as film SLRs. So at first, we had APS-C sensors being used with old lenses—introducing the crop factor. Then, rather ironically, just about the time that the 36x24 sensor is starting to become a player in the market, so are lenses designed specifically for APS-C.

Olympus, with the four-thirds idea, actually had the courage to ask, "What if we redesign the digital, interchangeable-lens camera from scratch, without concern for the past?" I understand that 4/3 and micro 4/3 hasn't perhaps been a huge success, yet, and may never be. But I give 'em credit for originality.

I never said medium format was a standard.

Well, "absolute advantage" isn't a technical term, but I thought what I meant was clear. Apparently not, so let me clarify. BY "absolute advantage," I simply mean an advantage that doesn't just make something better (faster, easier, etc) but rather an advantage that makes something possible that simply isn't possible without it. An interchangeable lens body can change lenses; that is what I'm calling an "absolute advantage" over fixed-lens cameras. A Pentax waterproof camera like the W90 can be used underwater; my K20D can't. The K-7 and K-x can shoot video; my K20D (or somebody else's old Canon 5D) can't. A lens that supports auto-focus has an absolute advantage, at least in that one respect (and assuming you care about autofocus) over an old manual-focus lens.

My point was, that 36x24 cameras have no absolute advantages over APS-C cameras.

To say this doesn't mean that 36x24 doesn't have ANY advantages. But absolute advantages make certain buying decisions easy. Relative advantages make buying decisions hard. If I am buying a new camera, and I know that I absolutely need to generate 25+ MP files to submit to my editor, well, that limits my buying options. (Here the sensor resolution, which I think is usually a relative advantage, has become an absolute advantage due to some external requirement.) But if I'm buying a new camera and my choices are, say, K-x or K-7, I'd have to think about it for a bit. I can do all the same things with both cameras. The K-7 may have a relative advantage here or there, but the K-x has some relative advantages of its own (lower price, slightly better high-ISO performance).

If a whole lot of people ABSOLUTELY NEEDED the advantages of 36x24 sensors, then we'd never have wasted a decade with APS-C cameras. Pros didn't switch to digital until cameras acquired sufficient resolution to make medium-to-large prints, which pros absolutely required. Nowadays, as digital publication (via Facebook etc) becomes the default method of distribution of photographs (much to my dismay), the advantages of full-frame cameras are needed less than ever by the majority of people taking photographs. Sheesh, I know a LOT of people who think their 6-8MP phone camera is GREAT!

Will

Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 05-19-2010, 07:26 AM

New Pentax body?
Posted By WMBP

Replies: 323
Views: 65,800

Henry Ford: "History is bunk"

Careful with your verb tenses there. Canon and Nikon WERE followers, back, oh, forty, fifty years ago. Ask somebody under the age of 30 where the innovation is today, and they are going to mention Nikon, Canon (maybe), Olympus, maybe Fuji, maybe Samsung, maybe Ricoh, perhaps two or three other makers. NOBODY THINKS PENTAX IS INNOVATIVE NOW. I don't mean to say that Pentax isn't making GREAT cameras. I think they are. I'm using them and I love them. And let me be clear: I think innovation is highly overrated. But that's precisely my point. It is highly overrrated—that is, a lot of people rate innovation very highly. Innovation = news, news = mind share, mind share = market share. Apple has never been as innovative as it looked. Didn't matter. It LOOKED innovative.

Actually, Nikon and Canon don't have to be so innovative. They don't have to make DEVIL cameras, or micro four-thirds cameras, or cameras with Foveon sensors, etc. They have so much of the market sewn up that they can to afford to just keep making really good cameras and be fine. Pentax behaves as if it were in that position. It's not.

The importance of price

I think Ben is right here. I purchased my K100D for three reasons:
Price

Shake reduction in the body—I was stunned that Nikon and Canon didn't have it

Reviews

They were all important to me, but price was really the first consideration and the decisive. I'd add that shake reduction in the body really is a price consideration, pure and simple. There's absolutely nothing wrong with image stabilization in the Nikon or Canon systems, other than the fact that you have to pay for it when you buy lenses.

Now that I have more money invested in Pentax than I like to think about, and I'm making a good portion of my income from photography, I simply can't afford to switch to another system. And because I am able to do very well with my Pentax bodies, I don't feel an urgent need to do so. So Pentax can keep me as an APS-C customer, at least for a while longer.

But if the main upgrade path for me—the main way to get a better camera—is to buy a Pentax full-frame camera, I think it's quite possible Pentax will LOSE me as a customer. Nearly all of my lenses now are APS-C optimized lenses. If I have to spend thousands of dollars to buy a new body and thousands more to buy new lenses, I'm probably going to figure out a way to do that buying Nikon.

The full-frame obsession

I simply don't understand the obsession with the full-frame idea. It's like some mythical challenge—killing the great white whale, the four-minute mile, putting a man on the moon. People seem obsessed with it. I can't for the life of me figure out why.

And what considerations now would drive somebody to full-frame? There's nothing magic about full-frame. Full-frame is a misnomer. It simply means "sensor size approximately = old 35mm film camera frame size."

What exactly are the decisive advantages of full-frame cameras? I simply don't see them. And full-frame cameras have disadvantages, too, and I don't just mean price.

Lenses!

I just don't see Pentax succeeding as a competitor in the full-frame market against Canon and Nikon. And I don't see Pentax or Hoya coming up with any other innovative ideas that would rock the industry or at least turn people's heads.

What I do think Pentax could do, however, is make more competitive lenses: better lenses, faster, and more affordable. Affordability would be key. We're trying to compete here with Canon and Nikon, not with Zeiss!

What I'd like Pentax to do is make a few more outstanding and VERY FAST primes optimized for the APS-C body. By doing this, they could keep their current body design, get some attention for themselves in an area that matters to pros, and pretty much eliminate the advantages of competing full-frame cameras at least in the image quality area. I'd be delighted to pay $700 for a 100 f/1.8 or a 24 f/1.2. Would rather have one of those than a new body. I pull the $700 figure out of thin air. It's a little bit higher than the average price I've paid for my lenses. My point is, if a lens costs $1500 or $2000, well, that's a tough buying decision for me. But if it's $700 or even $800, then it's worth serious consideration.

I think a line-up of seriously superior prime lenses from Pentax WOULD attract attention from pros in the Canon and Nikon camps. Lenses matter more than bodies. The problem is, Nikon and Canon have great lenses, too. That's why I would suggest Pentax work on PRIMES and make 'em really, truly, noticeably superior.

In short, I think Pentax's best option is to really cater to its niche and maximize its advantages. Instead of trying to be another camera maker that makes cameras that can do everything (most of it not as well as the competition, but more cheaply), pick an area that appeals to connoisseurs and become supreme in that area. And that area appears to be lenses, not bodies.

Will

Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 05-18-2010, 07:55 AM

Tricurious
Posted By WMBP

Replies: 5
Views: 2,115

I assume you are asking how CLOSE you can safely get. According to Pentax's specs on the DA 18-55 AL WR (the newer kit lens), the minimum focus distance = 9.84 inches (.25 meters).

smc PENTAX DA 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 AL WR - Official PENTAX Imaging Web Site

Keep in mind that, at that distance, you'll be getting the minimum depth of field for whatever aperture you've picked.

If you were asking how far away you can be, the answer is, as far as you want.

*

Don't know the answers to your other 2 questions.

Will

Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 05-06-2010, 07:50 PM

How often do you change the settings for pictures?
Posted By WMBP

Replies: 33
Views: 6,168

Right. Joe McNally has a book about some of his photos with a great title: "The Moment Ït Clicks." Kind of a pun, I guess. Obviously what he's really thinking, when it really clicks, when you nail one, when one comes out as good as you dared to hope it would.

It doesn't happen often for me. One of our forum colleagues here (miserere, alias Peter Zack) has a wonderful blog, "Enticing the Light." I recommend it. Wisdom + knowledge + fun: a killer combination. Anyway, one of his posts is titled 15 Truths About Photography. Truth #11:

Most of your pictures suck. So do everybody else's.

It reminds of something that Mike Johnston, a.k.a. The Online Photographer, said a good while ago. Can't find the post, but I remember vividly that he mentioned that he once had access to Ansel Adams' negatives. He said that he was surprised and somewhat heartened to learn that a lot of the negatives, well, sucked.

Which is probably why St Ansel is quoted as saying something like, "The way to take a good photo is to take 1000 bad ones."

Anyway, you're right: It's extremely satisfying when one clicks, when you nail one. If all you did was point the camera in the right direction and click the shutter at the right time, well, there's a GREAT DEAL to be said for that. I can't remember who said, it's better to be lucky than good. (Google says it was a WWII fighter pilot, which makes the saying even more meaningful.) Actually, that's about 99% of success in photo journalism.

But when your success was MORE than just a matter of luck, well, that is worth all the trouble.

Will

Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 04-27-2010, 05:14 PM

If you were just starting, what PP program would you get?
Posted By WMBP

Replies: 27
Views: 5,608

Leaving aside that there is something vaguely contradictory (or at least paradoxical) about this advice (don't buy Photoshop - but DO buy Photoshop), I still have to disagree.

Not everybody needs Lightroom or Aperture or Photoshop. EVER. I have been making a growing amount of my income every year for the last 4 years and I don't own CS4 or whatever it is. I do have Photoshop Elements, but I launch it only very rarely. I use Lightroom for 98% of my work, and I do think it's terrific. But I use Lightroom mainly because it's so good at helping me edit the hundreds of images I bring home from a wedding or a day shooting portraits. If I weren't dealing with so many images, I'd be much happier using, oh, Photoshop Elements, or ACDSee Pro 3, or SilkyPix Studio, or something else. I have no plans to buy the full version of Photoshop, not soon, not ever.

As has been said by many others, the only way to know is to try different programs and figure out what works for you. How many photos do you take? What do you need to do with them? How much time do you want to spend at the computer? What program's user interface makes you happy? You just have to try them—use those free demos!—and figure it out.

Will

Search took 0.00 seconds | Showing results 1 to 18 of 18

Forum Jump

Search Results for Liked Posts

Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!