|
Forum: Photo Critique
04-05-2016, 08:32 PM
|
| |
I can't emphasize enough how much I appreciate everyone's help, thoughts, and feedback! I really have also enjoyed see what sort of post-processing magic you've been able to work on my photos!
This has been a pretty energizing experience, and I'm definitely finding myself using my K3 more now. Thanks tons. I don't expect these will be the last photos I post here.
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
01-28-2016, 07:53 PM
|
| |
I really appreciate that. I actually did take one that doesn't have the people, but I like it slightly less -- the people give the waterfall scale.
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
01-27-2016, 09:07 AM
|
| |
Thanks both!! Any critiques? Exposure, composition, etc look good?
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
01-26-2016, 10:27 AM
|
| |
I just got my K3 and took it for a tour on a trip of Iceland. I'd love feedback -- landscape photography is not my strongest area. I haven't done any post-processing.
---------- Post added 01-26-16 at 11:34 AM ----------
One more:
 |
|
Forum: Pentax Forums Giveaways
01-26-2016, 10:15 AM
|
| |
This tip is also primarily for beginners:
Crop in the camera. It'll force you to think carefully about composition as you take your photos, and will lead to better photos in the moment and far better photos down the road. Eventually, when you get more serious, you might start doing a lot of post-processing cropping. But I find that I print and share 95% of my photos without doing much processing, and most of the time when I take a photo planning on cropping later I never get around to it.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
01-06-2016, 02:01 AM
|
| |
That's all really helpful.
I have another (hopefully) quick question: does anyone have any advice about focusing the camera/lens in the dark? My old lenses all noted on them how close to infinity the focus was -- but the 16-85mm seems (obviously) more geared towards autofocus and I feel like I'm literally focusing blind. Live view / focus peaking is pretty useless for shots like those attached. (Excuse the framing in the second photo -- I had to rig a tripod using the roof of my car and the lens hood, so I'll need to do some cropping when I get back.)
Thanks!
---------- Post added 01-06-16 at 03:03 AM ----------
Also, yes, I know lens shake is a problem in those. (I'm still perfecting my improvised tripods.) But, and correct me if i'm wrong, I also think the focus is off.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
01-02-2016, 10:23 AM
|
| |
Thanks everyone!
I got the 16-85mm with the K3, and have been having fun playing around with the camera so far. I've been a little disappointed with the sharpness of some of the photos, though. I'm not sure if the problem's the lens, the camera, or me, and was hoping for some help.
I've posted one photo here, which I think I took using focus peaking (and it was definitely handheld). Is this about what I can expect from dSLRs these days, or is my problem hand shake or imperfect auto-focus or what? The posted photo is the camera-processed jpg and I haven't done anything to it. (This obviously isn't my best picture ever.)
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
12-17-2015, 11:29 AM
|
| |
Thanks again to everyone.
Re the K5-ii vs the K3, it sounds to me like the K5-ii is going to be better for landscapes/still lifes on tripods but the K3 will be better for shooting people. Is that fair? If so, I think paying an extra $60 for the K3 ($620) sounds like the right call for me.
Regarding getting a WR body without a WR lens, does that effectively create a way for rain and whatnot to get into my body? In other words, if I plan on only using one lens for the next couple of years and it's not WR, do I need to treat my body like it's also not WR? If that's the case then I'm probably looking only at the WR lenses.
Lens-wise it sounds like either the DA 18-135mm or the DA 16-85mm are best for me. I like that the former is lighter and a bit cheaper. It sounds like the main advantage of the latter is the optics (and I would probably prefer the slightly wider angle to the longer zoom). Are the optics differences things I'm going to notice on photos that I don't blow up? I get that when you do software analyses of the lenses or pixel peep, you can see some differences. My priorities are more practical, though: will I notice the difference in an 8x10 framed on my wall? I've definitely owned lenses where the answer is yes. Do you think that's the case for these two?
Are there any other WR lenses worth considering? I don't need much of a zoom, but I think I probably am not looking at primes right now. Incidentally, this might be crazy, but I wouldn't be totally opposed to legacy glass. With focus peaking, I would consider giving up auto-focus for a great deal on a great lens.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
12-16-2015, 09:00 PM
|
| |
Thanks to everyone who's replied so far. Seems like a fairly strong developing consensus. Can I ask why the K3 over the KS-2 and the K3-ii (/ the OM-D EM-5 or something similar)?
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
12-16-2015, 07:16 PM
|
| |
I'm a longtime camera enthusiast (non-pro) looking to upgrade from my old DSLR (a Nikon D80). I am pretty adept with film, having shot and developed 35mm and medium- and large-format, but I'm relatively novice to digital. I am pretty much starting over with respect to a system.
My budget: <$1,000 for a camera body and one good all-purpose lens.
My needs: I'm primarily looking for a good camera for family/travel/hiking photos. I shoot mostly in manual mode and do very little post-processing. I don't need a camera with a lot of preset situational modes or great photo tutorials: I want a digital camera that's going to let me take great photos of my family and of when I travel/hike/play around. Image quality is probably my first priority. I've tried a series of well-reviewed point and shoot cameras over the past couple of years and keep coming back to my older Nikon D80.
In addition, the following are somewhat important to me:
- WR
- Low light shooting capabilities (this is the biggest thing I miss about my previous film cameras--the Nikon is just really noisy in lower light shooting)
- Weight, maybe. I don't know how heavy most modern DSLRs are, but I'd prefer somethings that's comfortable to do 5-10 mile hikes with. My old Nikon fits the bill.
- How easy it is to change shutter/ap/etc without too much thought mid-shoot. My sense is that most DSLRs are laid out well, so this might be a non-issue. But if there are models that are particularly intuitive or particularly challenging, this is a factor that matters to me.
- Video, maybe. Are any of these cameras going to be much of an upgrade over a ~$300-$500 point and shoot (or my iPhone)? If not, I don't care about video.
- Value. I'd obviously rather spend less, but I'm willing to spend more (up to or possibly even over my budget) on a camera and/or lens that really provides a noticeable step up over my next best option.
The following are not important to me:
- How the camera performs on a tripod (I rarely use one)
- How the camera performs with a flash (I rarely use one)
- Pre-set shooting modes ("Night Portrait" and whatnot)
- Wi-fi/bluetooth -- I'm pretty happy just taking out the SD card to upload pictures
- Ultra-fast focusing / focus tracking / burst shooting -- I do not do much sport or bird photography and will gladly sacrifice my ability to catch fast action if it means getting a camera that's better in other ways or costs less.
I'm probably leaning towards the Pentax K3 or the Pentax KS-2 (which I can get for ~$600 and ~$450 respectively). I'm also considering the Pentax K3-ii (~$720), but it seems like I'd be paying more mostly for features that I'm definitely not going to use (astrotracer, pixel shift) and features I could live without (GPS). I'm considering some non-Pentax mirrorless cameras too, but not as seriously.
Lens-wise, I'm intrigued by the DA 16-80mm (I like the length and it seems to be well-reviewed), but am concerned about weight and price. I'm open to other ideas as well.
Thoughts?
|
