|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
05-09-2019, 11:52 AM
|
| |
My favourite girl band songs
L7 "Pretend we're dead"
You Tube
|
src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/NAdlZ2F-fs8?controls=1" allowfullscreen>
|
And the Bangles "Hazy shade of Winter"
You Tube
|
src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/19d2aolIx0E?controls=1" allowfullscreen>
|
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
04-27-2019, 08:00 AM
|
| |
Yet they started with the 15-30 2.8, 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 that seems to be the sort of pro starting point, and ignored the ƒ4 and variable aperture lenses more popular among enthusiasts. I never appreciate the value of these distinctions.
The three mentioned lenses are as "professional" as anyone's. The DFA*50 1.4 is more professional than almost anyone else's.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
04-27-2019, 04:42 AM
|
| |
Tamron 2X F AF Review
No
For the 1.4 TC the limit is ƒ4 (but works better on 2.8 glass. For a 2x the limit is ƒ 2.8. This isn't a hard limit, you can extend the range, but you'll feel like you are futzing around.
ƒ4 can never act as ƒ 2.8. The AF system depends on ƒ2.8 DoF for accurate focussing. You want the image calibrated with 1/3 in front, two thirds behind and the subject in the sharpest focus. Using other than ƒ2.8, you get wider DoF and the camera can't be as precise in selecting the focus point. When you focus with 2.8 glass, the lens selects the correct focus point, then stops down from there. The focus point is the best the AF system can select. When I put the 2x TC on the Tamron it never stops searching. WIth the 1.4 TC, the focus lock is accurate and immediate. With the 2x , the point at which it wants to focus is less defined, and many times I interrupt the "searching for the perfect spot" algorithm with the shutter release, because I've found if I don't it never settles on a focus point. The range for acceptable focus is just to wide. The AF can search back and forth within acceptable focus looking for the "right" spot. For that reason, looking at the DoF of the final image, I may not be happy with where the images is sharp with a 5.6 lens.
Or more briefly, your focus point is selected more accurately with 2.8 glass.
The salient point here is the word "can". You can create commercially viable images, but they won't be as good, I find noise starts creeping in and results are unpredictable. Sometimes I get good images with the K-3 at 1600 ISO, sometimes I don't with the K-1 at 800 ISO. So ya, I can also get commercially viable images from my Optio W90 waterproof point and shoot. In fact our best selling image was taken with one. I'm not sure that says anything. You should be able to get a commercial viable image with almost any camera on the market.
I'm quite happy with my 55-300 PLM 4.5-6.3 But let's not pretend it gives me images like the 300 2.8. My standard procedure is to go out and grab a few shots with the K-3 and 55-300, then go back to the car and get the DA 300 2.8 and set up... the subject has to ba around awhile for that to happen, but, you don't want to miss the opportunity because you took time to set up a tripod and long lens when you had the chance.
From a day when I used both. (4 flickr favs)
K-3 and 55-300
 2019-04-10-AP-PM-Pine-Marten-55-300 by Norm Head, on Flickr
K-1 and Tamron 300 2.8 (5 flickr favs)
 2019-04-10-AP-PM- 6 by Norm Head, on Flickr
My flickr followers have spoken. You need ƒ2.8 to maximize your "favs". :D
I can do both images with the Tamron 300 2.8. It's my choice. With the 55-300 PLM I can only do the top image. But if you do what I did when I used to have only ƒ4 (or slower) telephotos you can always just say " I prefer the top image anyway." I fully expect the ƒ5.6 guys to go and "fav" the top image just to prove me wrong. :D
From my perspective, I don't take the 6 pound hunk of glass and metal with me for nothing. I take it because it's more functional even if it's less convenient. But as long as It's being carried around in the back seat of the car, it's not even inconvenient. And when I was guaranteed good shooting opportunities, I've carried it as far as 5 miles (with my bad hip and two torn rotator cuffs.)
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
04-26-2019, 12:20 PM
|
| |
Th image made with my Tamron 300 2.8 yesterday and 2x TC to get em to 600 ƒ5.6 were encouraging.
The Sigma 300 2.8 is still available new, and I believe there is a matched 2x TC. If you really want to spend that kind of money, maybe $3600 USD. My Tamron also works really well with the 1.4 TC for 420mm ƒ4 as well as the F 1.7x, for 510mm ƒ4.5.
From yesterday, with the 2x. I'm not sure it's up to the K-3's smaller pixels but it certainly makes the K-1 a useful option and gets close to the K-3 FoV with a lot more pixels.
The Sigma 500 4.5 is also still available and I understand you can use the 1.4 with that as well for APS-c.
 2019-04-25-Feeder-creatures- 3 by Norm Head, on Flickr
 2019-04-25-Feeder-creatures-32 by Norm Head, on Flickr
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
04-26-2019, 06:03 AM
|
| |
And that's what is in question, I'm sure we all want to know if you have the remotest possibility for thinking that or are just talking off the top of your head. As I recall Hoya kept the Pentax name for their medical division PENTAX Medical (Canada)
So even Hoya didn't mine the technology and ditch the name, they bought and use both the name and the technology, so what possible reason would Ricoh have for doing so?
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
04-16-2019, 05:02 AM
|
| |
You cherry picked your example. You could have chosen a lesser brand, but that would have defeated your purpose so you chose not to. Have you ever heard of Balderson Cheese? A small 20 man cheese factory in perth Ontario, bought by general foods 40 years ago. It's still marketed around the world as Balderson cheese even though it' probably less than0.5% of General Foods total sales. The issue being, a small brand name can survive in a big company that acquires it. You're trying to prove a negative, saying Pentax is too small to survive. You should know, you can't prove a negative. There are many examples of product that started as small innovative companies and kept their names, long after being swallowed by giants. I'm not really sure why it take someone else to tell you. It's the kind thing that's googleable if you really cared to post accurate statements. For me, I had an example off the top of my head, just from paying attention to the world I live in.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
04-15-2019, 06:16 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
04-15-2019, 05:09 AM
|
| |
Yes and no, there are still cars called Buicks, Chevrolet etc. long after they were swallowed by General Motors.
Louis Chevrolet - Wikipedia
Buick - Wikipedia
Some company names last long after mergers etc. Jeep currently owned by Chrysler are still called Jeeps. There' absolutely no reason to believe Pentax won't continue to be a brand well into the future.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
04-09-2019, 11:08 AM
|
| |
It could work like the "input focal length" command, but like the "input focal length" command, you're going the end up with the wrong lens info in the camera for the lens you are using from time to time. Having fewer things that I might forget usually makes me more efficient.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
04-09-2019, 06:21 AM
|
| |
A simple exif editing program would let you do that. But the older lenses lack the electronics to enable the camera to identify them, on my camera many just show up as "A series lens" The camera can't tell which a series lens. And going back and creating lens profiles for all those lenses, a function really only relevant to jpeg shooters would be a lot of work, for little gain.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
03-26-2019, 09:38 AM
|
| |
I used to teach video, it took my students at leas 10 hours of class time and countless hours of time outside class to produce a 2 minute video that met my standards. I find it hard to believe that the video uses people are discussing here would end up being anything but cute little snippets of next to nothing. Of interest only to folks fascinated by cute little snippets of nothing. In 10 years since I left the classroom, I produced maybe 4 short videos, and even those, just to demonstrate the abilities of my K-5 and K-3 in case I ever wanted to use my skills., but alas, it never happened. My skills remain wasted. :D
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
03-24-2019, 05:39 PM
|
| |
VIdeo is just to much work to do it right. I know everyone here owns their own studios and hire bazillion skilled technicians to produce their videos, but I don't.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
03-22-2019, 06:52 PM
|
| |
I've never seen a single informed post on the cost of adding video.
One person's "kicker" is another persons stare of disbelief.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
01-20-2019, 11:46 AM
|
| |
Again an issue I find confusing. I create presets for my post processing. Up to 7 processes with a button click. Maybe I'd only need 5 with a K-P but it would still only be one button click.
On Imagine Resources the K-P at 1600 ISO looks better than the K-3ii at 800 ISO. SO that's definitely an advantage.
Funny how the K-1 at 1600 ISO looks better than the K-1ii at 3200 ISO. Same chip but different result.
In my shooting the jump from my K20D CCD to my 16 MP K-5 CMOS was huge.... I'm not saying I didn't get good images with the K-20D, but I'm not going to claim they were as good as even a K-5, forget about a K-3 or K-3ii.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
01-20-2019, 10:20 AM
|
| |
That you might have to post examples of. Looking at the Imaging Resources files, yes better, but for me, not "purchase a new camera" better. There's better, and there's "I have to have that." better.
A K-3 image. You say the K-P would be better? More likely since this was pulled from more than half way through a 23 shot burst, on a K-P it wouldn't exist.
 2019-01-17-feeder-creatures-2 by Norm Head, on Flickr
---------- Post added 01-20-19 at 12:26 PM ----------
I wouldn't do that with a K-3, but I also don't know if I'd be happy with your images. In my case, in low light I go out with my K-1. Shooting small birds, I fill the buffer 3-5 times every hour.
I waited 15 minutes for a bird to land on this branch. I have to strike while the iron is hot. And he wasn't there long enough to allow the buffer to clear and resume shooting. It's all about what you shoot. Feel free to recommend the K-P it's great camera, but, it's not for everyone.
I don't think I'm suffering from poor IQ here.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
01-15-2019, 02:55 PM
|
| |
The only thing really worthy of this comment is the D850 which will give you 42 MP and 10 fps. Something like an A9 or 1Ds is going to give you 24 MP or less and you might as well shoot a K-3.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
01-15-2019, 07:16 AM
|
| |
I tried that out yesterday. For every day shots it saves a lot of time. For images like this, just a document of my daily walk I think I'm going to make jpeg the daily norm. Seriously, no one commented "I can tell you didn't use RAW on that image.
 2019-01-14-dog-walks-2 by Norm Head, on Flickr
For images that may be prints some day, I'll stick with raw.
 2018-y12-15-AP-afternoon-11 by Norm Head, on Flickr
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
01-14-2019, 08:41 AM
|
| |
The thing that concerns me with the K-P is the lack of buffer. With small birds , they are there and then they aren. You have to capture a lot fo images in a very short time. I frequently fill the K-3's 23 shot buffer. The K-1 drives me crazy.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
01-14-2019, 07:54 AM
|
| |
Looking at the price of the K-P I wonder what the price is going to be of the K-3 replacement. If it does have vastly improved AF.... the way Pentad works it's not really about improvements to the K-3, it's more about what have they done since the K-P.
And I have absolutely no handle on how good the K-P and K-1ii are.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
01-13-2019, 07:33 PM
|
| |
Neither does Juanita... :D
Right up there with the first line of the "Star Spangled Banner... "Jose can you see?"
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
01-13-2019, 01:18 PM
|
| |
No it doesn't have to occur. Not all photogprhers will overlook the Pentax advantage for other manufacturers. I've already had the choice many times. IBIS and Pixel Shift and price have kept me from other manufacturers for a few years now. Pentax doesn't need every photographer, they need the ones that appreciate what they do.Their tech may be a year or two old, and they don't get the proprietary stuff, but the price is right.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
01-13-2019, 11:01 AM
|
| |
Naw, that's not going to happen..."fastest, best etc'" add costs not consistent with the Pentax philosophy of best bang per buck. Pentax makes a living with providing people what they need, as opposed to what they think they want.
|
