|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
09-10-2008, 09:07 PM
|
| |
The way I look at it, if you want easy, buy a P&S and accept the potentially marginal quality. If you want very good quality at a reasonable price, buy a Pentax and put some effort into your pictures. If you want both easy and very good quality, open your camera bag, take out your checkbook, and hire a reputable professional photographer who'll do the work for you.
My old camera is a 6-year-old Sony F707 (my first digital camera), an OK camera for taking snapshots, but really very limited in usefulness and quality; Sony is a marketing company, much like Microsoft, and the quality of both companies' products are comparable. My original camera is a 23-year-old Pentax SuperProgram, which *always* took pretty darned nice pictures with whatever film I put in it. But I want to take more pictures, both easier and of higher quality; the Sony just ain't good enough and film is too slow, feedback-wise.
For me, the decision was easy. I wanted to buy the best camera I could for a reasonable price. The K20 fits that nicely. It may well be the last camera I ever buy. The K10D was OK when I looked at cameras months ago, just OK. The K20D was better enough, and I was ready to buy. I'm not dissatisfied with it; but then, I've hardly used it yet. I've a couple cousins getting married 9/20 and 10/10; I'll be taking hundred of 'memory' pictures to put on DVDs for them. They'll be a mix of lower-quality snapshots and higher-quality portraits. I'll shoot them all at 14.6 MP because I will capture some gems and they'll have the option of getting large prints of the gems. The K10D, based on specs alone, wasn't good enough for what I 'wanted'. The K20D pretty much is. That's why I bought it.
There are two kinds of people. Those who make decisions, and those who don't. The ones who don't make decisions will never be satisfied with anything they buy. The ones who do make decisions will be satisfied with their purchases and will upgrade when a newer product will give them more satisfaction. I never regretted buying the SuperProgram. Nor have I ever regretted buying the Sony. And I won't regret buying the K20D, even though I almost experienced an 'Aaaaaaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!' of total dismay and dejection when my vintage KR lens got stuck on the brand-new K20D, without having snapped a single picture.
I think the only people who would consider the K20D overrated are those who bought something else and need to convince themselves that they didn't make a mistake or need to convince themselves to be satisfied being 'year-behinders'. The rest of us know that we have a tool that will capture just about any picture or scene we want, sometimes with more effort, sometimes with less.
N
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
08-30-2008, 09:56 PM
|
| |
I have a whole bunch more test pictures, but I think I'll put them all on my web site. What I've found so far (and these have probably been stated in this forum before):- The exposure meter is sensitive to light entering from the viewfinder. Use the cover when your eye isn't there.
- The best flash results results from using ISO400 to ISO1200.
- Using vertical bounce (on a white ceiling) and the secondary reflector results in better longer distance flash pictures.
- In the ISO range where the camera works well, there isn't much difference between P-TTL and Auto modes on the Metz 58.
Now that I have a better idea of what works where, I'll do up a few sets of test pics that illustrate the usable ranges of the K20D and Metz 58. Hopefully I'll remember to log the flash settings; the camera seems to records all of its settings in the JPEG.
I still think the camera isn't working quite right. In green mode, I should be able to point, zoom, focus and click and get a respectable flash picture. After all, that's the purpose of Green mode, right? And in the semi-auto modes, the camera should compensate as much as is possible for the setting(s) the operator has selected and still produce a respectable picture. They did it with the Superprogram and film....
N
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
08-30-2008, 09:27 PM
|
| |
Another group from the same batch. I'm achieving more consistency across different settings and program modes. The first four should be vertical bounce. The last was angled down some, to 60 or 45 degrees.
Relevant info from JPEGs (I need to put names to the numeric exposure program and metering modes and the flash value; info's from a linux-based tool I'm hacking together):
Pic 1:
Exposure Time: 1/30
F Number: 35/10
Exposure Program: 2
ISO Speed Ratings: 100
Exposure Bias Value: 0/10
Metering Mode: 5
Flash: 9
Focal Length: 1800/100
Pic 2:
Exposure Time: 1/30
F Number: 35/10
Exposure Program: 0
ISO Speed Ratings: 100
Exposure Bias Value: 0/10
Metering Mode: 5
Flash: 9
Focal Length: 1800/100
Pic 3:
Exposure Time: 4/10
F Number: 35/10
Exposure Program: 4
ISO Speed Ratings: 100
Exposure Bias Value: 0/10
Metering Mode: 5
Flash: 9
Focal Length: 1800/100
Pic 4:
Exposure Time: 1/180
F Number: 35/10
Exposure Program: 4
ISO Speed Ratings: 100
Exposure Bias Value: 0/10
Metering Mode: 5
Flash: 9
Focal Length: 1800/100
Pic 5:
Exposure Time: 1/180
F Number: 35/10
Exposure Program: 4
ISO Speed Ratings: 100
Exposure Bias Value: 0/10
Metering Mode: 5
Flash: 9
Focal Length: 1800/100
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
08-30-2008, 09:00 PM
|
| |
It's later. I'm still working on the first set of test pics. They were all taken without using the secondary reflector. These test pics are taken at max resolution JPEG and scaled using Imagemagick's 'convert -sample 500x500' command. Any rotation is done using 'jpegtran -rotate 90'. And they're all from before tomtor's 'homework' reply.
Here're three more shots. I'm getting a little better; or at least I'm achieving some consistency. These were taken using my ancient CPC 80-200 zoom with A-ring on auto. (I'm using a 1.5 multiplier to convert the 35mm focal length to digital equivalent; so it's about a 120-300 zoom in digital.) Distance to subject was about 3m. The pics are still a little dark (the walls are actually pretty close to white, and his hair *is* white) but at least they're getting brighter. From the settings below, you can see I'm still experimenting.
Some relevant info from the JPEG info:
Pic 1:
Horizontal flash
Exposure Time: 1/180
F Number: 40/10
Exposure Program: 3
ISO Speed Ratings: 400
Exposure Bias Value: 10/10
Metering Mode: 5
Flash: 9
Focal Length: 30000/100
Pic 2:
Flash 45 degrees up
Exposure Time: 1/180
F Number: 40/10
Exposure Program: 3
ISO Speed Ratings: 100
Exposure Bias Value: 20/10
Metering Mode: 5
Flash: 9
Focal Length: 30000/100
Pic 3:
Vertical flash
Exposure Time: 1/180
F Number: 40/10
Exposure Program: 2
ISO Speed Ratings: 100
Exposure Bias Value: 20/10
Metering Mode: 5
Flash: 9
Focal Length: 30000/100
I was having doubts about using those old lenses, but it looks this one still takes a nice picture.
The Metz 58 can put out a nearly blinding flash. It has the power. As a slave, it *can* light up the whole living room in a picture.
As a preview to another goup of pics I'll prepare, I switched to ISO 400-1200 and turned on the secondary reflector. The results are much more satisfactory.
N
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
08-29-2008, 08:59 PM
|
| |
Thanks! You inspired me to set up the tripod!
I started at flash (auto, vertical bounce), 1/60 sec, f5.6, ISO 100 and cycled to 1/180 sec. The result was the generally dark picture (#430; 1/60, f5.6, 18mm, ISO 100). I worked my way up to ISO 400, which resulted in a not-as-dim picture (#462; 1/160, f5.6, ISO 400, 18mm). There were taken whilst there was still good light coming in the skylights.
Next I took a bunch at ISO 400 with the flash set in front and set as wireless slave. Pictures were better, but perhaps having the flash in the frame didn't help much (#481; 1/160, f5.6, ISO 200, 18mm).
So I aimed the flash away a little. Better, but still not as good as I would like (#487; 1/100, f5.6, ISO 400, 18mm), and now there's visible shadow. And zooming in was still dimmer. So I moved the flash out of the frame and installed the hoodie. Better, but still not great.
This batch was about 120 pictures. Time for a smoke, a glass of wine and make supper. And I'll try more later.
N
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
08-25-2008, 02:21 PM
|
| |
The Metz 58 autozooms with the DA lens at least when it is connected via the hot shoe. The flash's zoom can also be set manually.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
08-25-2008, 01:19 PM
|
| |
If I may be a S.A. in a jovial way, if one wants to shoot motion pictures, wouldn't a 1080p HD video camera be better? :D But yes, 15-30 FPS for 1/2 sec. could be very useful for capturing 'perfect' 15MP action shots.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
08-25-2008, 01:10 PM
|
| |
First, let me flash back 20 years to my SuperProgram and AF200SA (with Pentax 50mm kit lens, CPC 28-85 and 80-200 zooms--they have Ricoh mounts which nearly gave me heart failure when I first attached one to the K20D). It didn't matter which lens I used or at what zoom or which speed film I used (64-1600). With the camera set on auto (I don't remember how well it worked with shutter priority and aperture priority), I always got near perfect exposure with that flash and camera, even at ranges close to or somewhat exceeding the flash's 20' max range. I even got a fairly decent picture inside a Carlsbad Caverns big room, bracing the camera, setting it for an 8 sec. exposure, blocking the flash's sensor and manually firing the flash several times to light up the room.
Six years ago I bought a Sony F707. It's an adequate snapshot camera, but after 6000 pictures, I've outgrown its uneven colors, ultra-slow autofocus and extremely limited capacity (128MB memory stick). So it was time to buy a real camera again.
So I bought a K20D (w/18-55 kit zoom) and a Metz 58 ("pay once, cry once" was recently advised in this forum). I played with setting the 58 as a wireless slave in the middle of a large-ish room with vertical bounce. (The 58 doesn't seem to want to fire as a slave unless it gets a strong flash from the K20's built-in flash; hence putting the 58 on its stand in the middle of the room.) But by golly the entire room was well lit; I was amazed.
However, with the 58 attached to the camera, I'm finding it nigh-on impossible to get a properly-exposed picture. I got slightly better exposure but still inconsistent results setting exposure compensation to +.5-1.5. SO far I haven't found any combination or camera and flash settings that even approaches consistency.
Whilst I'm certainly not new to photography and am quite familiar with depth of field, aperture, shutter and other effects of SLR cameras, I'm at a loss here. What'm I doing wrong? Or what am I not doing that I should be doing? Do y'all have any concrete ideas on where I can start to get consistent flash pictures and to get consistent fill-flash pictures? (I expect they would be two very different settings.) Even enigmas and conundrums might be helpful. :)
Much of my picture-taking is of people in dynamic situations, so there is typically little time available to compose the picture and really not enough time to manually set the camera and flash for each and every picture. Someone in a thread here called it 'press photography', which is a rather apt description.
I generally try to record 'memories' for people, so snapshot mode generally works well. But to avoid the 'I wish I'd had/used a better camera for that shot" times, I take all pics in high resolution. If I end up with 1-3% gems out of 500 snapshots, it's worth it.
Thanks!
Neal
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
08-20-2008, 03:28 PM
|
| |
My thought was, "Well.... Darn. Now what do I do?" Well, duh. Search this forum! Thank y'all! A 0.2mm feeler gauge got my 80-200 CPC lens off. Then I removed its pin and the pin on my 28-85 lens. So when did feeler gauges first become necessary camera accessories?
Come to think of it, iboth lenses are labelled "KR" on the aperture rings. That wouldn't happen to mean K-Ricoh, would it? The two lenses worked fine on my SuperProgram for a good number of years. Tumbling down the snow on Tuckerman Ravine with the camera around my neck might've bruised them a bit, though.
Again, I'm glad I found my way here!
N
|
