|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
04-15-2009, 09:34 PM
|
| |
To each his or her own, I guess. I shoot exclusively in RAW and manual mode, and I actually really enjoy PP in ACR. It's part of the fun for me. Rarely is a photo done after I've pushed the shutter button. I like pushing and pulling various aspects of the photo to my liking.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
04-15-2009, 09:07 AM
|
| |
Jay, I didn't really think the lens was a dog. Of course, I don't think all things were equal. I would venture to say that if they were, people would have a difficult time telling the difference between the two. That shot of the Carcassonne text seems to really paint the lens as a dog. That's why I don't believe all was equal. Very nice shots by the way.
Mostly true. But it depends on how over or underexposed you are. You really have to drag the highlights back in ACR from a D90 image to believe just how much detail it preserves. It really does perform very well. Of course, if you are consistently over or underexposing your images to your dislike, you really need to learn more about photography. And the crazy thing is, you don't have to learn that much. I really don't understand why people keep pointing to this. Before I got my K20D, I read everywhere about how people were annoyed (some overjoyed) that it underexposed by about 2/3 of a stop. I thought, that's no big deal AT ALL. All of these enthusiast level cameras have the ability to set the EV to plus/minus whatever the photographer feels like. If you don't like the underexposure of the K20D (and it is to an extent a matter of taste) you just adjust the EV setting. The D90 is no different. It is so easy to set it. There's an EV button right next to the top display. You push it and adjust it to taste. If people are overexposing and getting ticked about it, they simply need to check out their camera's basic abilities. I really feel like this is a silly argument for or against these cameras. You can get very good exposure results from both, and it's a matter of a VERY SIMPLE adjustment. And quit knocking the D90's blown highlights until you pull them back yourself in ACR. You'll poop your pants. After adjusting many images in ACR taken with a K110D, K200D, and K20D, and then adjusting images from a D90, I was pretty blown away by the D90's preserved highlight details. It performs very well. They didn't make a dud of a camera by any means.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
04-14-2009, 01:25 PM
|
| |
The focus points in AF systems are usually bigger than the little center rectangles in the viewfinders indicate. If the Nikkor AF system liked the contrast of some lettering or lines slightly to the left of the Pentax AF system's choice, the difference in the results could be significant. Also, if the camera's angle with respect to the subject was shifted even slightly, because of the angle of the box, it could yield significant differences. Of course, perhaps all things were equal, in which case, I must say your copy of the Nikkor 35/1.8 is a real dog.
I was using the graphs that are shown for each lens, and which are adjusted for the differing theoretical maximums of each manufacturers respective sensors. Maybe that was stupid of me. In any case, my personal experience has been that the Nikkor 35/1.8 is sharper at 1.8 than my Pentax FA35/2 at 2. That said, I find both lenses to be superb optically. My only beef with the FA35 is the focus accuracy. The Nikkor yields many more keepers for me. All this may be reflective of sample variations as well.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
04-14-2009, 10:53 AM
|
| |
I generally agree with that, but I must say, I was stunned at how much detail can be yanked from an overexposed RAW image from my D90. My K20D never had that much detail. But of course, the K20D always produces much more detail in the shadows. For me, I shoot in manual mode, and exposure is not such a big deal with regards to an individual camera's penchant for over or underexposing. Both cameras produce stunning results, and it's only necessary to learn how the camera gets them.
My favorite Pentax lens is the 35/2, but I've found the Nikkor 35/1.8 to be sharper wide open. I've never used the DA35, so I can't speak to that as much, though I will say side by side comparisons always have their caveats. For instance, the first shot of the Carcassone box is not the same framing with both, so it's hard to compare text crops, knowing the focal point is also probably different, as well as the angle of the camera with respect to the box (affecting the apparent depth of field of the crop). Another example from another shot is the lion on the high chair, which appears slightly sharper with the Nikkor lens (I could be wrong). In any case, I wouldn't attribute that to the sharpness of either lens, but rather the accuracy of the camera's AF on that particular shot, or the accuracy of the photographer's MF on that particular shot. In any case, Photozone found the Nikkor 35/1.8 to be sharper at 2.8 than the the DA35 at 2.8, and it found the Nikkor to be a little sharper in the center than the FA35 at 2.8 while it found the FA35 to be slightly sharper in the borders at 2.8. Photozone found the Nikkor to be sharper at 1.8 than the FA35 at 2. That, again, is in line with my personal experience with the two lenses. All that said, when both images are correctly focused, I prefer the FA35 to the Nikkor, but just slightly. I've found them to be very close. I like the Pentax bokeh a little more. For AF accuracy, I've found the Nikkor runs circles around the FA35. Of course, both systems have produced many photos that I'm very pleased with.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
03-14-2009, 01:57 PM
|
| |
I'm very interested in Samsung's NX development, and here's why: I want a nice small camera with APS-C sized sensor performance and depth of field control. And I want to be able to attach nice small fast prime lenses to make a very compact and low-profile kit. I know Panasonic is working on a fast 25mm for their micro 4/3rds. I can't imagine Samsung wouldn't follow suit.
So here's my deal. Why would I want a camera with an inferior viewfinder, and probably inferior performance compared to full-size dSLRs (because size would limit the computers, etc.)? Well I just explained that in my first paragraph. So if I'm giving up a little in performance so I can have a more compact size, why the hell would I want to attach an adapter to my camera that would add more size? For myself, I'd like to have a compact EVF camera with compact lenses to match, and that means buying new lenses.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
03-06-2009, 12:51 PM
|
| |
I agree that 12 MP's is enough, but I like to pixel peep. I also like to take pics. It's just when I upload them for PP, I can't help but pixel peep. That said, I think it's perfectly possible to be a pixel peeper and say enough is enough with the MP race. As a pixel peeper, what I'd like to see more than MP's increasing, is ISO performance improving, and dynamic range improving, and per pixel sharpness improving. That would make me a happy man. The Nikon D700 is a FF camera with very usable pictures at astonishingly high ISOs. That's because it is a FF and only 12 MPs. But the reason for the MP race is consumer stupidity. Too many buyers don't know about the most important aspects of a sensor and the camera attached to it, so they try to just boil it all down to a number: the megapixel count.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
02-21-2009, 08:49 AM
|
| |
I had the same thoughts. I'm not familiar with the lens. What are it's advantages over the FA35?
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
02-20-2009, 12:22 PM
|
| |
+1 on that. I just threw up in my mouth.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
02-20-2009, 03:12 AM
|
| |
I was with you until that last sentence. It sounded like a lemming running off a cliff.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
02-20-2009, 03:10 AM
|
| |
No offense, but I don't believe that at all.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
02-20-2009, 03:03 AM
|
| |
That's interesting in light of what photozone.de has to say. According to them, the DA16-45 beats down the DA35 in the sharpness category. That's not to say it's a better lens. They're both considered sharp, but there's also contrast, color rendering, and bokeh to take into account.
If you're not looking for an improvement over image quality or a faster aperture, there's not really a reason for you to replace your kit lens. I don't think you'll find a lens that focuses appreciably faster. Some people place a lot of stock in image quality and faster aperture settings, though, and those people end up buying "good" glass. I will say this, though, there is a lot of "good" glass to be had for well under $500.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
02-19-2009, 05:35 PM
|
| |
If I was the OP, that request would be a surefire way to get me to tell people to f off.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
02-19-2009, 04:38 PM
|
| |
I had that camera, but I sold it and bought a K20D because I wanted the AF adjustment. I would imagine they are discontinuing it because the K2000 is a 10MP and the K200D is a 10MP. They're probably going to replace the K200D with a model that differentiates itself from the K2000 a little more clearly. There are a lot of other differences besides the 10MP (like weather sealing, top LCDs, etc) but when people are going to buy a camera, a lot of times they look at how many MPs the sensor has. I think that's because they don't know what else is important in making a great picture, so they like that nice easy number. So you'll probably see a new K300D coming down the pike.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
02-19-2009, 04:13 PM
|
| |
I think it is safe to say that, when people drop between $400 and $1000 on a lens, they feel stupid if it's not a 9+. Sometimes I wonder how much this has to do with the ratings in the forum. That said, I know there are people who can shell out the dough, but still give an honest assessment of their investment. I'm just wondering if anyone else thinks that when people pay more for a lens, psychologically, they feel like their lens is as good as the price.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
02-19-2009, 03:07 PM
|
| |
I was under the impression that the DA*55 didn't have any aspherical elements.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
02-19-2009, 01:58 PM
|
| |
I had oil on one of the glass elements in a lens of mine. The lens took fantastic pictures, but around Christmas, when I tried to get nice Christmas light bokeh, I noticed the lights were rendered badly when I shot wide open. What should've been perfect circles had smeared and broken edges. The problem went away when I stopped down a bit. I inspected the lens closely and discovered the oil on the element inside. It had creeped onto it by a couple of millimeters or so around the edge. I had to pay forty bucks to have it cleaned. The camera repair guy said over time it would've creeped further until it would affect all shots. That's not oil on the aperture blades, but I've heard that oil on the aperture blades indicates oil maybe creeping around elsewhere in the lens.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
02-18-2009, 10:57 PM
|
| |
I agree with that statement wholeheartedly. The part about photozone and the part about the real world. Photozone is fantastic, and I pore over the reviews before purchasing. It feeds my LBA. But an example of the real world vs. photozone was my purchase of the DA21. I was sweating bullets because of photozone's findings on a lack of border-sharpness in the DA21 at 3.2 and 4. Well, I got it anyway, and I love the images I get from it even wide open. It has great contrast and for a wide angle, it has pretty good bokeh. I know bokeh is not really thought of as important in a wide angle, but to me it is. If an image already looks pretty sharp, what's left? There are other qualities that a particular lens can produce besides sharpness. To be fair to photozone, they do discuss these things a little bit, but I suppose they are not as easy to quantify.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
02-18-2009, 10:48 PM
|
| |
Well, I guess I don't like it for the same reason you do: we each have separate brains with separate ideas of what looks nice. I find it too busy in spots. That said, I'm still holding out for more examples, and I'm hoping the bokeh is better at 2 or 2.8.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
02-18-2009, 08:45 PM
|
| |
So far, from Rainer's pics, I'm very impressed with the f1.4 sharpness of this lens. I remain very disappointed with the bokeh though. That makes me sad. I really thought they were going to hit a home run with this thing.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
02-18-2009, 08:41 PM
|
| |
ClassA, I personally don't have any "lens authority," but if you look through the photozone.de reviews, I believe they have it (FA43) as giving the best results in their resolution tests. The macro lenses actually aren't at the top of the sharpness list. The sharpest Pentax's reviewed on photozone are the FA43(sharpest), FA31, FA35, FA77, FA50, DA16-45(wide end), and the DA*16-50(wide end).
Of course, that comes with a caveat. Those lenses reach sharper points at some point in their aperture range than all the other lenses reviewed on photozone, but some of them take a while to get there. For instance, the FA43's borders at f1.9 stunk up the joint. The FA77's borders don't really shine until f4. On the other hand photozone has this to say when assessing the sharpness of the DA40: "The Pentax DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited is indeed not as sharp as its direct cousins but frankly the difference is not really detectable by the naked eye." A pretty interesting statement about naked eyes if you ask me.
Photozone also rates the DA40 and DA70 higher than the FA43 and FA77 because of a more even performance in sharpness. Namely, the DA's start off better from corner to corner, though at their best, they don't reach the lofty heights of the FA's (before anyone gets excited and calls me an FA-ophobe, I've stated elsewhere that I've been disappointed with the build quality of the DA limiteds. Also, their bokeh is not as highly acclaimed as their FA counterparts). That said, the FA31 is the highest rated Pentax, optics-wise, because the sharpness is superb throughout the aperture range.
That's what some expert in Germany has said. Me, I don't know nothing.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
02-17-2009, 08:58 AM
|
| |
You can get the DA21 for the same price, if it sells for $379. If that's the case, I'd much rather have the AF option, and the slightly faster maximum aperture. This lens really doesn't look attractive when pitted against the DA21, in my opinion. I've really been impressed with the IQ of the DA21. I think I'll keep mine, and spit on any Voigtlander I see.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
02-17-2009, 08:51 AM
|
| |
I agree that the FA35 or FA31 would be a better choice than the FA50. As far as the 50 offering more speed, it comes with a caveat: you lose a lot of sharpness when you open it up. When I first got my K110D, I bought the FA50 because everyone said that's what you need. I really loved it. It takes great pictures, but I didn't know what I was missing until I bought the FA35. The 35 is a much more useful focal length, being closer to the traditional FOV that a 50 offers on 35mm film. Also, it's much more useful in low lighting. With the 50, it was always, "Do I want to open it up so I can use a lower ISO, but sacrifice sharpness in a major way, or just keep it at a 2.8 and live with the noise?" The 50 really is soft wide open, and it takes it till 2.8 to get where the FA35 already is at wide open. And a 2 is pretty fast. Especially a sharp-across-the-frame 2. So if you have the DA* 50-135mm, you've got that short tele area covered already. I think you'd find the normal FOV of the 35 nice to have. As far as the FA31, I think that's a fantastic choice, but if I had 800 bucks (which I don't) I'd buy two or three lenses instead. Some day when I have money to burn, I'll get it. Until then, the FA35 is kicking butt and taking names.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
02-16-2009, 05:21 PM
|
| |
I've been excitedly awaiting any news on this lens, in particular because of how much stock I put in bokeh. I must say, from these sample images, I'm underwhelmed. I had anticipated a much smoother bokeh. Maybe I'll turn my LBA onto something else. I'll have to stay tuned and check some more sample pics.
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
02-13-2009, 01:01 PM
|
| |
Yeah, I was just goading you in my own immature way.
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
02-12-2009, 07:56 PM
|
| |
We live in a funny world when "constructive advice" is a substitute for a good old-fashioned apology. But some people have their pride.
|
