Liked Posts - Search Results - PentaxForums.com

The Latest

Forum

Cameras

Page 1 of 2

⟶

Showing results 1 to 25 of 28 Search: Liked Posts

Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 12-19-2010, 09:35 AM

Star & Limited lenses
Posted By JonPB

Replies: 15
Views: 6,115

I surprisingly find myself disagreeing with most of the answers posted.

A* lenses were the top-shelf 35mm film, manual focus lenses. They are still excellent lenses. I believe these were the first lenses to receive the * designation.

F* and FA* lenses were the top-shelf 35mm film lenses from the autofocus era. They are still excellent performers, both optically and in their physical construction.

DA* lenses are top-shelf digital APS-C lenses. They are weather resistant--they have better environmental sealing than the WR-designated lenses, but the extent of the difference is unknown. They are excellent lenses, both optically and physically. DA* lenses tend to have fast apertures and are correspondingly large lenses.

DA Limited lenses are also top-shelf digital APS-C lenses, both optically and in construction. They are not weather sealed. They tend to be slower (optically), do not have internal motors, and are correspondingly small and light lenses. They have an all-metal body construction.

FA Limited lenses are, again, top-shelf lenses, for 35mm film. They are faster and larger than DA Limited lenses, and are correspondingly larger, but remain compact. They tend to have higher center sharpness than DA Limiteds, whereas DA Limiteds tend to have more consistent sharpness across the frame and across different apertures.

Note that although A, F and FA lenses were designed for 35mm film, they can still be used for digital SLRs without any worry. Some DA lenses can be used on film cameras, too.

Pentax does not have a strict "this kind of feature gets this designation" system to its lens lineup. For instance, you'd expect the top-shelf lenses to have the fastest optical designation, yet the widest DA Limited is a 15mm f/4 lens whereas there is a consumer DA 14mm f/2.8. The DA Limited 15mm is a much smaller lens, however, and has better build quality.

My suggestion is to not worry about naming conventions. Pentax--and all other lensmakers, it seems--assigns all sort of crazy names to their lenses. Rather, identify the kind of lens you want and compare the specific lenses available to meet that need. That said, if you get any * lens or any Limited lens, you will have a good lens. Some of them are the best glass available from any manufacturer ever for the 35mm SLR format; some of them are merely good.

Forum: Lens Sample Photo Archive 01-26-2013, 07:45 PM

Leitz Wetzlar (Leica) Elmarit-R 1:2.8/35 (II)
Posted By JonPB

Replies: 0
Views: 7,153

I realized today that I just kept this lens around because I knew I liked its photos and its handling, but had never actually gone on a "let's see what happens if" walk with it. So, here are two sample images, one open and close focus, and one stopped down and infinity focus. The lens is a 2nd generation 35mm f/2.8 for Leica's SLR system.

Note that while I played with the development settings of the whole pictures, the 100% crops were set to default Lightroom 4 import settings except increased exposure (2+ stops) on the infinity-focus crops.

Taken with handheld K-5.

Open: I think f/2.8.

100% crop, near center of frame.

100% crop, near edge of frame.

Stopped down: I think f/8.0.

100% crop, near center of frame.

100% crop, near edge of frame.

Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 03-15-2013, 09:00 AM

DA*55 vs K/Tak 55mm
Posted By JonPB

Replies: 23
Views: 3,448

I've been meaning to compare my fifties, which include the DA 55/1.4 and Tak 55/1.8. The bottom line, though, is that the differences between the lenses aren't very meaningful in photographic terms. I'd recommend an A50/1.7, or DA50/1.8 for autofocus, to anyone who's just looking to make pictures with this length of lens. For absolute value, SMC Takumar 55/2. Personally, I'm overly distracted by minor aberrations that very few other people care about, even if they notice them, and I also am fascinated by the optics and mechanics of camera lenses... but those aren't the same as photography.

Here are my lenses and what I would expect to find in a comparison:
Takumar 55/1.8. Low contrast but sufficient resolution. Good for atmospheric portraiture. Renders veiling glare much like my own eyes, which makes its images more natural and comfortable.
Super Takumar 50/1.4. Similar to the 55/1.8, but with a particular glow or radiance when used wide open.
SMC-M 50/1.7. Solid but not outstanding rendering, in every aspect; which is to say, desirable as a standard lens. Higher contrast than non-SMC lenses, creating an appearance of sharper images. In a word, balanced.
SMC-A 50/1.4. Has the glow of its Super Takumar predecessor, but with much higher overall contrast. Wide open, this lens is all about that glow. Oddly, though technically superior to the Takumar, to me this lens becomes more specialized due to the dominance of that often-desirable aberration.
DA* 55/1.4. Gives what I think of as a modern rendering: where older lenses are desirable for their warm, tender rendering, this lens is desirable for its stark, unfiltered honesty. Basically, this lens' characteristic is that it gets out of the way and lets the subject speak for itself. Plus, remarkably smooth distant background bokeh.
Leica 50/2 (contemporary of the SMC-M line). Avoids the Pentax-characteristic green bokeh fringing. More natural rendering of nearly-in-focus bokeh, at the possible cost of harsher far-from-focused bokeh. Lower contrast than SMC, but likely more center resolution.

But then, I haven't actually done a systematic comparison yet, so that's just my impression. Now I want to see how well my impression matches up with reality. More to come. :)

Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom 03-29-2013, 04:01 PM

Slide copying adaptor vs scanning??
Posted By JonPB

Replies: 14
Views: 6,252

You actually want a magnification equal to the crop factor, or 1.5 for our APS-C cameras.

I'm still learning how to do this without a scanner, but...

Slide copiers that have adjustable magnification (to get to 1.5) and that can hold your negatives (most of them are designed for mounted slides) would be the quickest way to get the job done. Downside: you're limited to your camera resolution because you can't take a "panorama" at a higher magnification and then stitch those images together.

Current scanners, by most reports, produce very workable images, very quickly. You can get models that scan multiple images at the same time, and focus isn't a problem. Downside: it may be an expensive, single purpose piece of hardware that takes up a bit of room. It, too, cannot be oversampled. Most importantly, though, with color negatives, you will have far less data in the blue channel due to the orange mask.

I use a tripod mounted over a light table to take pictures of my negatives. This allows me to get as high a resolution "scan" as I have the patience for, and also allows me to use filters (a stacked 020 and 021 seem to do the trick) to compensate optically for the orange mask. This also uses the least amount of specialized equipment: tripod, filters, macro lens...these are all things you can use in the field, too. Downside: this takes a lot of time and patience to get right.

I'm still finding ways to speed things up. I use multiple levels to ensure everything is parallel: this is much sturdier than creating a tower of lens hoods for a 100mm macro. My latest innovation is buying a negative holder for an obsolete scanner: the holder was cheap because nobody uses that scanner, but it holds negatives just as well as it ever did. The filters I started using to maximize image quality now get me close enough that I can use the eyedropper in Lightroom then customize to taste.

I'm also aiming to enhance this model by using my laptop as a backlight, and loading up a customized mask for the negative I'm taking to maximize contrast data in the digital realm. Haven't quite started that project yet, though.

Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom 03-30-2013, 09:34 AM

Slide copying adaptor vs scanning??
Posted By JonPB

Replies: 14
Views: 6,252

To me, it is becoming an issue of end result. Taking careful pictures of every exposure on a roll doesn't make sense when I might only want to print one or two of them. I'm thinking that a loupe would be a good investment to help me decide which exposures I want to invest more time in.

If you're seeing a reflection in the flattening glass, then you have too much extraneous light, which will reduce the contrast of the image. I not only mask out the light source below the negative, but I also do this in a near-dark room (aka on my bathroom floor). Removing most of the unnecessary light has proven to be the single biggest improvement I've yet found.

Also note that negative film is inherently low contrast...which is the flip side of having wide latitude. (Slide film has high contrast and low latitude.) You will normally need to clip the whites and blacks somewhere, or use creative tone curves, to get a desirable level of contrast in the final image.

Personally, I like using my digital camera to capture the negative because it allows me to choose which densities of the negative I want to work with in the digital realm. My view is that as much as possible should be done optically to make the digital bits as meaningful as possible. For example, when I took two pictures of the same negative, one with automatic exposure and one that clipped the highlights of the sprocket holes (exposing to the right), the noise level noticeably favored the latter image.

Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 03-15-2013, 03:33 PM

DA*55 vs K/Tak 55mm
Posted By JonPB

Replies: 23
Views: 3,448

Today, I have begun to learn just how much of a pain lens testing is.

I found that my DA*55 has some decentering, or at least that the right fifth of the frame is considerably less detailed that the rest of the frame. (I'll note that this lens has scratches from a fall onto a hard surface, so it probably wasn't a manufacturing problem.)

I found that slight misfocus can cause major differences in comparing lenses. Not necessarily in the overall quality of the image, but in telling the difference between two sets of very good optics.

But, as far as this thread is concerned, I'll say that if you don't know whether you want a Takumar 55/1.8 or a DA*55, then you shouldn't waste your money on the modern lens. Even my Auto-Takumar era lens is superb by f/2.8, and throughout its range has less blue glow than any of the SMC lenses I've tried. My DA*55 isn't representative, but it is better in most ways, including contrast, resolution, and bokeh... but the Takumar isn't all that different.

If you don't like the Takumar rendering, you'll probably need to go to another brand of lenses. My Leitz 50mm/2.0 doesn't have the high center resolution of any of the Pentax lenses that I tested--and it pains me to say that a free lens outdoes my $500 lens in any measure, but that's what I've seen. The Leica does, however, render differently. Bokeh doesn't have the thick, green outline; instead, it has a brighter, but much thinner, yellow outline. Bokeh is also harsher with the Leica, although I think this allows the Leica to convey more information about subjects that aren't quite in focus than do the Pentax lenses. Contrast is up across the frame. Overall, when I look at an image from my Leica 50/2, my brain seems to get a better representation of the subject matter than the Pentax lenses conveyed. If I'm shooting an outdoors portrait with lots of distance between the subject and the background, I want a Pentax. If I'm shooting in a close, dark environment, less controlling things than capturing what's happening, I want the Leica. The point being, if your shooting style will accommodate it, you'll probably be better off buying ten $50 lenses in the 50mm range, all from different makes, and picking the right lens for the right shot, than if you buy one expensive lens to do it all.

Because even the cheap Takumars will do it all, and will do so quite respectably.

Anyhow: if I were to have only one Pentax lens for my camera in the 50mm range, it would be the A50/1.4. Full automatic features except autofocus, decent manual focus feel, great performance in middle aperture settings, and a pleasant though gauzy performance wide open.

If I were to also have an autofocus zoom in the 50mm range, I'd go for the Takumar 55/1.8. Better performance wide open without the added color of SMC.

I'll probably sell the rest of my Pentax fifties, including the DA* once it is fixed. It'd be a great lens for portraiture; that's what the lens was designed for. That's just not how I want to use that focal length.

Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 03-04-2013, 10:54 PM

:cool: Lets see those ''film'' shots
Posted By JonPB

Replies: 26,421
Views: 3,336,667

A few from my first roll of Ektar. SF1 with 55/1.4 or 24/2.0. Negative processed at the local shop, then photographed with K-5 and S-M-C Takumar 50/4 and finished in Lightroom. Takes a while, but considering this was my second roll of film, the amount I've learned, and the results I'm getting, this is quite worthwhile.

Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 03-05-2013, 10:10 AM

Why not bring back the legendary glass?
Posted By JonPB

Replies: 110
Views: 9,668

Regarding the FA*24: first of all, I don't think anyone's saying that this lens can't produce good images, or even that it isn't a good lens, just that it doesn't qualify as "legendary glass." I agree with that. It is "historical glass," being one of the first mass produced lenses with an aspherical element, using I believe a resin mold technique that never caught on but which gives the lens a bit of warmth. As far as I can tell, cost-is-no-object Leica didn't release an ASPH lens until 2 years after the FA*24 was released. But I'm not even sure about all of that and such details only matter to collectors, so, onward.

While this post talks about the FA*24 in some detail, I'm really going after what attributes make up a fine lens.

Yes and no. The nisen bokeh is caused by, as you say, bright outlines of bokeh discs, which is overcorrected spherical aberration. But from everything I've seen, the FA*24 has only moderate overcorrection compared to most Pentax lenses, and is no worse than the "reference class" bokeh of the 50/1.4 lenses. I would be willing to wager that the FA 31 adds more color to its bokeh than the FA*24, too, but I went with a red-dot on my 35mm lens so I can't say that for sure.

What the FA*24 suffers strongly from is a contrast between sagittal and tangential resolution. This exacerbates the bokeh outlines for parts of the disc. Here's an example (shot on film).

Look at the disc bokeh in the trees, upper left corner, where you see the sagittal edges (lines from the center to the edge) are brighter but where the tangential edges (lines equidistant from the center) are much better. Together, they create wedge-shaped ugliness, but this shows that the problem isn't purely circular in nature.

The near focus, light color branches are instructive. Toward the center of the frame, there is no double-lined effect, but this arises with some vengeance with the branch extending to the upper left corner (sagittal) about halfway from dead center. Yet on the right side, nearly the same distance from the center, is a branch with what looks like undercorrected (that is, desirable) spherical aberration, but this one is angled away from, not towards, the corner, which is to say that it is positioned tangentially.

I point this out because a legendary lens should have good spherical correction as well as having sagittal and tangential resolution in parity with each other. For example, the FA 43, despite its colored bokeh fringing and lack of edge resolution, has rather harmonious resolution that leads to pleasing rendering.

Curiously, I think that shot shows what I like about the lens. High contrast yet soft. Lends punch to the overall image without pulling the eye away with unnecessary detail.

We can agree, I think, that the FA*24, though not outright bad, doesn't resolve fine detail well enough to be "legendary." That said, the visual effect of an image--which to me is what makes a successful picture--depends on a first impression made by contrast, which tells the story, and only then uses fine detail to keep the mind interested. As the person who was standing behind the shutter when it released, I don't need to be reminded of the broad strokes in the image, so contrast doesn't seem as important; but for someone viewing the picture for the first time, that's the first thing they see. And the FA*24 gives that in gobs.

So, yes, I think Pentax could design a better 24mm lens, and ought to for any 135-frame camera they release. However, given the options for a much larger f/1.4 lens, much slower f/3.2 lens, slower and optically inferior zoom, or many-fold more expensive alternatives, the FA*24 hits quite a sweet spot in the current lineup. What makes the 24 so desirable is how unique it is: there are lots of very good 35s, 50s, and 85s, but only a slow progression in the area of 24s. While I fully intend to keep my FA*24, I would vote for giving us a similar, more modern lens rather than remaking this 22 year-old design.

Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 02-28-2013, 06:06 PM

Why I don't care if Pentax goes full frame.
Posted By JonPB

Replies: 22
Views: 3,560

I just returned from a walk with my Super Program. I own a perfectly good K-5. They're both great cameras. I suppose we're in the same niche of people who enjoy photography more because of how thoroughly considered and well designed Pentax gear is...even when that doesn't directly impact the final image.

Purple fringing is usually caused, to the best of my understanding, by reflections from the sensor, which are then reflected back to the sensor and are captured as if they were part of the original image. This is because the sensor assembly is more reflective than film. I would hazard a guess that red and blue (i.e., purple) are reflected while green is not because most lens coatings are designed to transmit (i.e., not reflect) the color which dominates human visual sensitivity (i.e., green). Lenses designed for digital sensors are designed with coatings that minimize this reflection.

Having used dozens of lenses, mostly designed in the film era and many before SMC technology, the worst purple fringing I've ever seen has been on my DA*16-50.

That said, other chromatic aberrations are caused by lens designers allowing some leeway as to colors focusing on different planes. Because film emulsions are thicker than the digital sensor's depth of sensitivity, a lens that focuses higher energy light (blues) behind lower energy light (reds) would not have a visual effect on film but would cause misalignment toward the edges of a digital sensor. Of course, this aberration is among the easiest to fix in post, and so causes me minimal concern when considering a lens purchase.

Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 02-26-2013, 02:08 PM

Introduce your... film Pentax!
Posted By JonPB

Replies: 3,535
Views: 775,012

I used to think I had it bad. I had a hard time choosing between so many Pentax lenses for my DSLR. So many options; some good lenses that are horribly undervalued, and some great options that are priced accordingly. Then I got curious and ran a roll of film through my "free" Spotmatic that had come with one of those lenses. Now, I'm hooked--and I haven't even begun exploring the different films or mechanisms to run film through. This could become problematic because I live in a small apartment.

Here are my current options:

The Spotmatic is going to get new seals, as will the Super Program. I'm surprised at how well the Super Program handles DA lenses, especially compared to the SF1. Overall, though, I'm mostly enjoying the slower approach to photography that film encourages, and I'm learning tons about how to work with color in the digital domain. I'm quite amazed that, despite my K-5's undoubted superiority when it comes to resolution in low contrast images, I'm preferring this contrarian approach to making pictures. Not just because I like contrariness, which I do, but because the images somehow seem more representative if less accurate.

...I watched a movie last night and thought to myself, "this was shot on film." I don't know how I recognized that. I wonder, though, if this is why I like the look of my film images, and why Instagram is so popular: most people alive today grew up associating 2D imagery with film, which makes it look right, whereas the more accurate digital images just look "off" somehow.

Regardless, I'm apprehensive of the possibility that, should I develop a good workflow from negative to print, I will simply need to also have at my disposal cameras that shoot larger negatives. While I am staggered by the technology of digital cameras, and have the utmost respect for the value of large-sensor cameras, I simply don't see myself buying another current-generation digital camera. Film seems to be adequate at its weakest, sublime at its best, and thoroughly enjoyable at all points (if we're willing to overlook dusty, scratched negatives). I assume others can relate to this line of thinking. I'm new to it; where has it taken you?

Forum: Pentax K-01 01-24-2013, 07:58 PM

K-02 - I wish. Anybody want it?
Posted By JonPB

Replies: 119
Views: 15,819

An immodest proposal: the KW-# series. Basically a K-01 body, except with ergonomics designed by the normal hardware team, that is not just weather sealed but submersible. Here's why that works: the WA lenses that go with it--we can start with 15, 24, 40, and 70--are mostly inside the camera body, making it relatively easy to make them also submersible. Most of the time, you've got a K-mount camera; but when you need it, you've got a very compact underwater system. It would be far and away smaller than DSLR housings and have far better image quality than compact submersibles. It would cost a good premium, but even if it cost 2x as much as what we have now there would be pros who would rather risk a $2k backup camera that's designed for extreme conditions than a $5k kit that they know they need tomorrow and which will only "probably" survive.

Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands 01-22-2013, 05:12 PM

Speed Booster Adapter
Posted By JonPB

Replies: 92
Views: 16,612

I believe this is called a "condenser" lens, because it takes larger image circle and condenses it into a smaller circle. It would make lens defects physically smaller, but if the sensor has higher resolution then you're back to square one, but with the additional defects of a new lens.

I like it. I'd trade my optical viewfinder for a condenser lens that could be moved in or out of the optical path without removing the lens. This would allow me to mount a 35mm 135-frame lens and quickly move to a 24mm angle of view without worrying about the sacrifices of a zoom.

Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 11-11-2012, 11:53 AM

question about the da*55
Posted By JonPB

Replies: 22
Views: 2,524

I haven't been around here much lately, but I haven't heard anything about problems with this lens.

From my experience with the DA*55, there are only two circumstances I'll turn to another ~50mm lens: I prefer my Leica Summicron when most of the out-of-focus subject matter is in front of the focal plane, and I prefer my Auto-Takumar when I want blooming glare. Perhaps you refer to the SDM problems with the 16-50 & 50-135? Those don't apply to this lens, and incidentally the problem with those other lenses has been fixed for lenses manufactured this year. (And, my own pre-fix 16-50 has only had a few hiccups and performs perfectly so long as I use it at least weekly.)

For background blurring that I have not seen surpassed, even by cinema lenses (that cost tens of thousands of dollars), for crisp high contrast transition handling, and for all-weather knock-about use, the DA*55 is my choice and would continue to be my choice if I had an unlimited budget.

That said, from the above, you can gather that I've spent way too much money on ~50mm lenses. Based on this, I suggest that you use the DA50/1.8, find what its limitations are for you, and only if you find meaningful shortcomings to spend the additional money on a lens that meets those specific needs. I don't recommend buying the DA*55 because other ~50's are so good. The autofocus doesn't seem as fast as other lenses, and, when weather sealing matters, most people will turn to a zoom lens. But, because of how it excels compared to how I use it, it would be the last ~50mm lens that I'd part with and the first I'd acquire again when I had the means.

I think the allure of Pentax products is that they produce excellent but constrained products. Canon's competitor for the DA*55 is a 50/1.2, which is larger, heavier, and twice as expensive--and which, to my eye, sacrifices optical quality for that extra half-stop. Canon doesn't make a weather sealed 50/1.4 with superlative optics because that'd undercut the value of the 50/1.2. Canon wants you to climb their ladder. Pentax has no such worries: their market position seems to force them to design for functionality, and that has won my wallet for more years than I'd like to think of.

Forum: Post Your Photos! 11-16-2012, 06:55 PM

Night Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge, Portland, OR
Posted By JonPB

Replies: 6
Views: 1,056

_IGP5549.jpg on Flickr

Nothing too exciting, but this represents my most heavily edited image yet. Thoughts welcome. Thanks for looking!

Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 11-14-2012, 09:02 AM

Crisp , in focus landscapes
Posted By JonPB

Replies: 32
Views: 4,386

I disagree that you need a wide-angle lens. Telephotos can make great landscape images. What you want to do is increase the distance between the camera and the nearest subject matter, which is actually easier with a telephoto than a wide-angle lens.

Reading about hyperfocal distance didn't make much sense to me until I looked at one of my manual focus lenses. Here's a Pentax A 50mm f/1.7:

There's the aperture ring. There's the focus ring above it. Between them is the focus scale. The red diamond shows where the exact point of focus is, in this case at about 1.9m. To either side of that are aperture markings that show depth of field estimates. F/16, in this case, lines up with 3m on the left side and about 1.4m on the right side. This tells you that all subject matter between 1.4m and 3m will be in focus at f/16.

Here's a Pentax M 50 f/2:

This lens is set for a hyperfocal distance at f/4. Note that the "4" on the left lines up with infinity above it. Everything from about 14m and beyond will be in focus at f/4.

What you need to do, if you want both near and far subjects to be in focus, is to increase the distance between the camera and the nearest subject that you want to appear sharp. If you want the waves of the sea to be sharp in the foreground as well as the hills in the background, then you need to be a good 20m away from the waves. Which is to say, you need to be aware of where you place the camera relative to the subject matter, and what subject matter is in the frame--which is something that applies regardless of what camera or lens you are using.

Note, though, that the depth of field scale on the lenses above was designed for 35mm film, and they're just guidelines for what is roughly considered to be acceptable focus. My personal rule of thumb is to adjust this number by one stop. With the second image above, I would set the lens to f/5.6 to achieve the depth of field indicated at f/4.

Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals 08-31-2012, 06:17 PM

An open letter to Pentax.
Posted By JonPB

Replies: 2
Views: 1,367

Thank you, Pentax.

Thank you for allowing me to take pictures outside. I love nature, including the sunny, dry, comfortable kind and the blustering, grimy, challenging kind. I appreciate being able to capture images without worrying about my equipment. And, yes, I also appreciate the way people give me odd looks when I'm thinking more about the image than about the equipment, because this hobby is more about hunting images than about weighing specifications.

Thank you for enabling me to journey with a camera. I enjoy the majesty of life around me and the opportunity to occasionally express my experience through photography. Your compact and lightweight equipment allows me to be in the world with my camera at hand, rather than needing to dedicate special trips to take my camera out to see the world.

Thank you for the prints. The end result of photography should hang on many walls and be seen by many eyes. The only consistent regret among my prints is that I hadn't yet purchased a Pentax to capture the image. You enable greatness; it is up to me, now, to employ my tools to their full advantage.

Thank you for your brilliant engineers. Somehow, you take a given technology and allow it to capture images better than anyone else. I don't understand it, but I appreciate it.

Thank you for allowing me to explore the hobby. Buying into the Pentax system means being able to buy and tinker with many different kinds of optics, which often have even more functionality than they were designed with. You allow me broader horizons than anyone else, and for that you are special.

Thank you for treating me with respect. Your product lines are designed for people who want to capture images, not for people whom you can separate from a few more dollars. I have never felt ashamed that I didn't buy the higher model because all of your products are designed to offer as much as they can.

Thank you for offering all of these things at the same time. Again, I don't understand why others don't do this, but I appreciate that you do.

No, Pentax, you aren't perfect. We have had quibbles from time to time. But, just the same, I wanted you to know that I am glad you are with us.

Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 08-20-2012, 11:48 PM

If "you" would limit yourself to have only two prime lens...
Posted By JonPB

Replies: 90
Views: 13,467

This is a good question: difficult yet utterly fanciful. It makes me appreciate my lenses. I like having all of them. But, if only two primes:

FA24. I'll admit that it isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but I've never been displeased with how it renders an image. I can't say that about any other lens I've used. If Pentax released a 135-frame camera, I'd be tempted to buy it just for this lens. If Pentax stops making cameras, I'll adapt the FA24 to whatever mirrorless catches my fancy. If someone offered me a FA31 in trade for my FA24, I'd take that, sell the FA31, buy another FA24, and perhaps enjoy the proceeds by buying/developing/printing some film with the FA24 and whatever old K-mount body I can find.

Summicron 50 (E55), by a very small smidge. My second lens would be in the 50mm region, because that's about where cropping from 24mm becomes painful. It is a tossup between DA55 and Leica Summicron-R 50/2 (E55). Both are, without doubt, utterly fantastic and surpassing lenses; both put my Super Tak 50/1.4 to shame, which itself is a fantastic lens (with the caveat that "shame" should only be considered an apt term for those with LBA), and I'll take either over my S-M-C Tak 50/4 Macro in any common aperture and focus distance. The DA has distant bokeh that is noticeably smoother at f/2 than anything else I've used, plus its auto-exposure and autofocus features. But the Leica has a "bloom" or "glow" at f/2 to it that affects almost-in-focus portions of the scene and makes them more enjoyable to look at, which benefits portraits--when the eye/mind is more concerned with the subject than the background, at least the eye/mind of non-photographers--and it also renders more evenly across the frame and has less bokeh color fringing. I'd take either, and happily, in a two-lens kit; but, between the two, because I normally have time to compose and focus for my telephoto shots, the old lens leads by a nose. Maybe in fall, spring, or winter, the weather resistance of the DA55 would push it in front. The two have different characteristics, but, for now, the Summicron wins.

That said, today my bag had only the FA24 and DA55 in it.

Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 08-18-2012, 06:25 PM

Pentax competitiveness: Weather Resistance, <100mm primes, DNG, and kits.
Posted By JonPB

Replies: 38
Views: 4,663

"Any sufficiently advanced technology..."

I wish I could be a fly on the wall when Pentax makes these strategic decisions... and a fly who understands Japanese. Having sales data and being able to talk with the engineers would make it far easier to be an armchair manager.

I'm optimistic about what we'll hear in the next month.

Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 02-07-2012, 09:42 PM

Identical lens, different reflection color???!??!?
Posted By JonPB

Replies: 21
Views: 2,814

I'm not well read in the subject, so please read this as the ignorant musing of an amateur:

Coatings are interesting. The idea is that light is reflected off the coating and off the glass; the coating is 1/2-wavelength thick; these reflections, being 1/2 wave apart, then cancel each other out. This (counter-intuitively, but as predicted by the laws of physics and demonstrated by measurement) increases light transmission. Problem is, the coating is only functional at wavelengths (read: colors) that respond to the thickness of that particular coating. Early, single-coated lenses would therefore emphasize the transmission of a particular color to the detriment of others. While this wasn't a big deal photographically--certainly, a huge improvement over uncoated lenses--it was less than ideal. This is why Pentax's "Super Multi Coating" was such an impressive technology: the multiple layers of coating cancelled out reflections pretty well across the spectrum.

Anyhow, with lenses, there are four things that light can do: transmit light forward (yay!), reflect light back (boo!), diffuse the light (forward or back) (in which case the lens is blurry and intolerable), or absorb it (and turn it into heat) (like smokey sunglasses or a ND filter). Ignoring the latter possibility, either light is transmitted or reflected. If you reflect less, then you transmit more. That's a 1-to-1 direct relationship.

So what you're looking at with different colors of reflections are the colors that are not being handled by the coating. A blue reflection tells you that the coatings were probably for red and violet, whereas a purple reflection might suggest red and blue coatings. Pentax seems to have always run a continuous improvement system with their coatings (for a while, I picked up a number of identical model Takumars just to compare their reflections), so that might be what you're seeing. Since this is an off-brand, however, I'd guess that you're simply looking at two different coating technologies from two different manufacturers.

And, as an aside--when you're talking about coatings that are uniformly thick at 1/2 the wavelength of visible light, it is easy to see how photographers became quite afraid of touching the elements of their lenses. For a long time that was very fragile stuff. Come to think of it, one lens might have had a layer of coating washed off by some well-intentioned previous owner...but then you'd probably see swirls in the reflections, if only around the edges.

Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 12-21-2011, 09:11 AM

You know you have LBA when..
Posted By JonPB

Replies: 250
Views: 23,133

I sought a psychiatrist to help me understand my affliction more clearly, but I couldn't find a doctor properly certified as MD, PhD, SMC. So I went the traditional route and received a prescription from Dr. S. Takumar for a 24mm in the morning, plus a 50mm as needed. My prognosis is encouraging but limited: I just need to keep my feet on the ground so that I don't stray too close to the stars.

Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals 12-25-2011, 05:18 PM

Will Pentax manufacture E-mount lenses for Nex cameras?
Posted By JonPB

Replies: 30
Views: 4,464

I normally leave these topics well enough alone, but... (all of what follows is from my own humble opinion which you should feel free to disagree with):

Pentax is an innovative company. Pentax was there when single lens reflex cameras were introduced. Pentax explored the mini camera business, both with the M-series and then the 110. Pentax had one of the first 135-frame DSLRs, and (fortunately for us) decided to not bring it to market. Pentax currently has the most affordable greater-than-135-frame camera and the most affordable weather sealed camera/lens system. Pentax was one of the few companies to go with sensor-based image stabilization.

Pentax won't make lenses for Sony for the same reason that Sony wants other companies to make lenses for them: that's designed to profit Sony.

Pentax will continue to find soft spots in the market and exploit them. E.g., their Limited lenses have no equivalents, and their high-end APS-C DSLRs are better than anyone else's (although that's a much closer horse race and depends entirely on evaluation criteria).

Pentax will release non-reflex cameras that will be considerably smaller than their reflex cameras today. However, these will be designed for the purpose of being the "best" cameras they can be, and will not be based on someone else's design. Pentax has been making digital cameras for a while, and they will target sensor sizes that are optimial (in terms of wafer reliability multiplied by quality) rather than image circle sizes (lenses and mounts) that currently exist. The "medium format" digital mirrorless camera will have a sensor roughly the size of the 645D, and will have a lens mount to accommodate that but not much larger (along with adapters for 645 and 67 lenses). The "popular format" digital mirrorless camera will have a sensor roughly the size of the K5, and will have a smaller lens mount as well (along with adapters for K-mount with SDM AF; I suspect they'll also look at having an external-motor AF system for all the Limited lenses that have been sold [as these are the people they want to continue with the Pentax brand], as well as look at the possibility of having an adapter that actually moves the lens mount, adding limited AF to MF lenses like the F teleconverter does). Why no one has developed a condensor lens/adapter for M43 is beyond me, but I wouldn't expect an OEM to do that.

The Pentax mirrorless systems will take full advantage of the potential that changing lens mounts brings to the table. I expect to see smaller cameras, possibly with a X100-like viewfinder rather than the straight electronic one. In doing so, Pentax will essentially straddle the M43-135-MF sensor sizes and those respective markets. I would also expect to see Leica-like microlenses to address the fact that short lens distances and digital sensor wells counterindicate one another. Ultimately, having an APS-C mirrorless camera will make NEX a primary competitor for Pentax in the future, not a brand to contribute to with a few excellent lenses.

That said, it wouldn't surprise me if Pentax continues to sell to (or collaborate on optical designs with) Tokina, who undoubtedly will be very interested in the NEX lens market.

Lots of parentheses, sorry. There's enough time in the day for me to run away from the crowds to post this, but not enough time to edit it properly. Cheers!

Forum: Weekly Photo Challenges 12-19-2011, 08:12 PM

Weekly Challenge Weekly Challenge 189 - Long Exposure
Posted By JonPB

Replies: 34
Views: 6,289

This was 2 seconds, so borderline "long exposure," but it was taken last night so maybe that's worth something. The two cranes in midframe silhouette are part of the construction of my hometown's newest bridge. In this photo, or at least my full-resolution version, you can clearly see four bridges, plus the one under construction, and it was taken from another one. :D Unfortunately, I haven't found a good way to take pictures of all 10 (and soon 11) bridges in my city in one go.

Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 12-23-2010, 08:31 PM

Software price vent
Posted By JonPB

Replies: 55
Views: 13,359

Let's compared software to lenses. Nobody asks why the DA* 16-50 is more expensive than the DA 18-55. Some question why it is so much more expensive, but still the 16-50 sells enough lenses to justify the price. The 18-55 is close to free; you probably got one with your camera. You can make images with it, excellent images even. But many people decide to spend more money to make even better images, given the same scene, with better lenses. The same goes for software. The software you got with your camera is perfectly decent. You don't even need to use that software; you can capture JPEGs and send those directly to the printer. But if you want to make better images, with the same capture, you probably want better software. So, save up and spend the money on that photographic tool just like you would with a lens.

Some people wonder why software is so expensive when it is nearly free to manufacture and distribute. Well, consider a snow shovel: yes, there is a cost to the raw materials and getting the product to me, and I expect to pay that, but I also expect to pay for the labor involved in producing the thing. Developing software involves a considerable amount of labor from specialized workers. Not only should they be compensated for their time spent developing a product I use, but they should also be compensated for the skill they've developed which they apply to that labor.

Pirates might argue that software doesn't cost anything to distribute--or, more accurately, that they're bearing the cost of distribution rather than the software company. And developing that software is a sunk cost; the company won't be hurt by one more person using the software without paying for it. Which is true with software where it isn't with snow shovels. But there's this thing where if nobody paid for it, the software wouldn't exist. If I shouldn't pay for it, who should?

Now, if Adobe could somehow get more money from people who use Photoshop professionally and less money from recreational users like me, I'd be happy to pay a lower value to use that software. But that would be terribly intrusive and cumbersome. The practical way of sorting that out, for now, is the market: if you use it enough to justify the price, you pay; if you don't, you find an alternative.

I'm quite pleased with the value I received in purchasing Bibble. I get lots of global adjustments, and the local adjustments I want--clone and heal, specific adjustments to regions--are easy to implement. I didn't purchase Photoshop because it isn't worth the price, to me.

Why is software expensive? Because people who use those tools get value enough from the tool to pay that price.

Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II 12-03-2010, 06:00 AM

Old lenses adequate for k-5?
Posted By JonPB

Replies: 53
Views: 15,150

As to the questions posted: Have lenses advanced as much as cameras? Not by a long shot. Although today's computers allow for better designs, particularly of zooms, and coatings have come a long way, the understanding of optics hasn't undergone and significant changes. The theory and practice of recording light, though, has.

Is it worth it to use old lenses on a current camera? Sure. Absolutely. Or no, absolutely not. That's a value judgment. You have the lenses; take some pictures with them. If they meet your needs, then they are worth it. If they don't, they aren't. We can't tell you where you'll come down on that line.

That said, I can say a few things that might help you decide. the primary reason to avoid old lenses is due to the automation of new lenses--aperture and focus. Which has nothing to do with optics. Newer lenses make taking pictures easier because of these features. However, they'll also remove you from part of the process of deciding how to capture the image, which might make you a worse photographer, which will always be the primary limitation.

Most new lenses fail to out-resolve even 10 megapixel DSLRs wide-open. If you shoot mostly at large apertures, I don't think "old" versus "new" is really the question.

Although I don't have a K-5, I expect to keep my older lenses, even the ones substantially outclassed by newer lenses. Why? Because some of them produce a look that I enjoy. I like the images they produce. They may not be all-purpose, but they are worth keeping and using. Do I also use current lenses? Yes, but that's because I like having an autofocus option.

Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10-26-2010, 09:06 PM

DA 35mm/2.4 - A Plastic Wonder! -- DAL35 vs FA35 vs DA35m vs A35 (many photos!)
Posted By JonPB

Replies: 141
Views: 119,525

SMC isn't SMC. Pentax runs (or, at least, ran) continuous improvement in its coating processes. Take a look at two SMC lenses and you'll sometimes see different reflection characteristics; my Pentax-F has lots of reddish tinge, whereas my Pentax-DA tends to blue, or my two identically labeled Takumar 135mms (admittedly, non-SMC) also have different coatings. I don't know if coatings have changed in the last 5 years, but I'd be surprised if they haven't as even small changes make a large difference when you're looking at 11 optical surfaces.

Pentax isn't good at marketing the improvements they make, but that doesn't mean that they aren't making improvements.

You could be entirely right, that the coatings haven't changed. But the exposure is quite a bit different, and if we trust that the aperture and shutter were set correctly (both by the user and the mechanism), then something has to explain that difference.

Search took 0.00 seconds | Showing results 1 to 25 of 28

Page 1 of 2

⟶

Forum Jump

Search Results for Liked Posts