Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Showing results 1 to 22 of 22 Search:
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10-10-2016, 11:14 AM  
SMC Pentax-A 2.8 100mm, differences between macro and non-macro
Posted By Dr. Zee
Replies: 12
Views: 880
Okay, thank you very much.
So, theoretically, it's optically the same lens?
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10-10-2016, 10:06 AM  
SMC Pentax-A 2.8 100mm, differences between macro and non-macro
Posted By Dr. Zee
Replies: 12
Views: 880
In the Pentax forum reviews of the non-macro SMC Pentax-A 100mm 2.8 there is only one photo of the lens:


Does anyone know anything about housing variations of this lens? I think I've found a non-macro version, but there are some clear differences between it and the one pictured here.

This is the lens I'm looking at.

Am I looking for an identical match to the lens in the first photo, or is there acceptable variation?
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 09-23-2016, 06:56 PM  
How important is aspect ratio?
Posted By Dr. Zee
Replies: 12
Views: 823
I haven't dealt with printing yet. I guess I need to get into the habit. Alright, thank you.
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 09-23-2016, 05:25 PM  
How important is aspect ratio?
Posted By Dr. Zee
Replies: 12
Views: 823
I avoid unusual or novel crops, but I am in the habit of taking small liberties within the rectangle of a photo. If I'm shooting weddings and portraits professionally, is it important to adhere to standard ratios like 2x3 or 5x7 or 8x10?
Forum: Pentax Forums Giveaways 01-17-2016, 11:16 AM  
READ ME! Pentax Tips from the Community (55-300mm Giveaway)
Posted By Dr. Zee
Replies: 773
Views: 80,639
Until you and your subject are relaxed, all of your photos will look posed.
Your best shots will almost always come from the end of the session when everyone is comfortable and having fun, so don't put the most important setup first.
Take 5-10 minutes, and just shoot the subject. Talk to them, make them laugh, make them feel comfortable.
If you have specific setups you want to shoot, go from least important to most important. Save the big intricate shot for last. If you do it first, it's likely to feel stiff and staged.
Taking your time with the big setup will also give you a little time to learn the room and the light, so later photos will also benefit from being superior technically.
The facial expression you want is probably not a posed one, it's an expression moving to or from a pose, so don't make your subject feel like they have to "mug" make them feel fluid, and only direct them when you're really zeroing in on what you need.
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 08-14-2015, 07:27 PM  
K-3 II, external flash with manual lenses
Posted By Dr. Zee
Replies: 8
Views: 1,513
I'm very new to flash photography. I recently upgraded to the K-3 II and I'm trying to learn my AF-360FGZ flash unit. I've been using, and enjoying, a Takumar 50mm and thought I'd also try using it with an external flash.
So I've been stumbling around with these settings, and I wanted to run them by someone to make sure I'm not making my life unnecessarily difficult.

Here are the rules of an M lens, an external flash, and the K-3 II as I currently understand them:
  • No TTL. Though the flash fires, and it says P-TTL on the unit, it fires at full intensity every time. Changing the EV on the flash seems to have no effect. This can be compensated for by stopping down the lens aperture or ISO, at the expense of the ambient exposure.

  • The flash can only switch to Auto Mode when the camera is on M or X.

  • Shutter speed is fixed at 180 or less, can only be controlled in M, and then still not set above 180. Sensitivity and EV can still be controlled on camera in most camera modes, but shutter is, for the most part,locked.

  • When the flash is in Automatic mode, there is no direct EV compensation setting on the flash. Flash output can only be reduced by entering higher ISO or stopping up the aperture on the flash unit.

In a dynamic, low light setting with lots of people around, I can't stop and futz with my flash and camera to this degree, so if I'm correct about all these rules, it'll spell doom for my affair with Manual lenses.
Forum: Pentax K-3 08-14-2015, 01:56 PM  
Questions re: K-3 II pixel shift and Astrotracer
Posted By Dr. Zee
Replies: 102
Views: 18,882
So minimizing noise while avoiding rotation blur. Good to know.

I had no idea the 10x loupe existed! Thank you very much.

Why turn off optical stabilization?
Forum: Pentax K-3 08-13-2015, 05:11 PM  
Questions re: K-3 II pixel shift and Astrotracer
Posted By Dr. Zee
Replies: 102
Views: 18,882
I was shooting west at roughly a 70 degree angle. A 30 second exposure with the Astrotracer produced about 1/3 as much trail as without. But still, that would have to be a heck of a calibration issue.
Forum: Pentax K-3 08-13-2015, 01:30 PM  
Questions re: K-3 II pixel shift and Astrotracer
Posted By Dr. Zee
Replies: 102
Views: 18,882
Went out to catch the meteor shower last night. It was a bust, so I spent 3 hours dicking around with Astrotracer and Bulb Mode. I found that any exposure longer than 10 seconds led to a star trail. Can anyone else corroborate?

I was shooting at 120mm, I guess it's possible that the effect would be reduced with a shorter focal length. I'm in Chicago and was shooting a planet that was barely visible at 120mm anyway.

For the more experienced star photographers here, what is the purpose of taking multiple shots and stacking them? Also, does anyone have techniques for getting sharp focus on a star? They seem to confuse the AF, and the difference between soft and sharp seems to be less than a mm on the throw.
Forum: Pentax K-3 07-19-2015, 09:46 AM  
ACTION NEEDED! Lightroom Profiles for K-3.
Posted By Dr. Zee
Replies: 66
Views: 14,240
I know this is an old thread, but I stumbled across a pretty alarming blog post comparing Adobe's DNG treatment to CaptureOne's customized camera profiles. The K-3 II is not yet supported by CaptureOne. Looks like I need to make a switch to PEF. Suddenly feeling boxed in by Pentax's lack of CR2 support.
Forum: General Photography 07-10-2015, 04:33 PM  
Post Processing. When is a photo not a photo?
Posted By Dr. Zee
Replies: 67
Views: 3,182
Huge oversimplification. Of course photos aren't reality, but they are the light reflected off of reality stored on a recording medium.
Forum: General Photography 07-09-2015, 01:57 AM  
Post Processing. When is a photo not a photo?
Posted By Dr. Zee
Replies: 67
Views: 3,182
So, this is an extremely general and, I think, philosophical question. I'm aware that there's no "correct" answer, I'm wondering if there's a consensus.

Please bear with me, I feel like I need to give this some context.

I think there's a numbness and a disdain happening right now for photography. Technology puts incredible color, dynamic range and sharpness in the hands of anyone who can afford it. RAW post processing and Photoshop make it possible to do almost anything with a photo.

When I think of capital P Photography, I think of a person on location in the 60's shooting blind. I think of them dialing in exposure and aperture from memorized charts, and selecting film based on experience.

When I first started shooting I took a very modern approach to photography. I thought a photo was like a film. A film is a total fiction, it's entirely manufactured. I would shoot for composition and after that do whatever I wanted to the photo. When I came to understand that I was a technically incompetent photographer, and had no business presenting myself as one, I became fixated on technical issues like pin-sharp focus and vivid exposure. I began to feel like if the photo didn't look excellent in-camera, then it was garbage, and if I could push it in post to make it look good it was somehow a lie.

While I'm still just an enthusiast, I've gotten to the point that I'm fairly happy with the photos that I'm taking, which brings me to my question: How much RAW manipulation is acceptable in a photo, before the photo becomes "fake?" I've been thinking about this a lot. A part of me hates the incredible color representation of RAW digital, and the otherworldly brightness people can pull out of it, and a part of me hates the trendy low-contrast high dynamic range photos that are incredibly popular right now, because they both seem like lies. But I'm also aware of the way people react to those photos. Older people love the crushed blacks and vivid colors, and young people love the 70's Kodak look of a low contrast treatment. But if I take an attractive photo, put a split tone on it, put a graduated filter on it, bump up the grain, blow out the highlights etc... Is that still a valid photograph? Am I just a tool with some software manufacturing an image?

Like I said, this is a big question, any viewpoints are appreciated.
Forum: Monthly Photo Contests 07-02-2015, 08:56 AM  
Strings of the South Bridge
Posted By Dr. Zee
Replies: 20
Views: 998
One vote
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 06-24-2015, 03:47 PM  
K-3/k-3 ii iso
Posted By Dr. Zee
Replies: 27
Views: 2,902
Will do. Thanks for the tip.
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 06-24-2015, 08:50 AM  
K-3/k-3 ii iso
Posted By Dr. Zee
Replies: 27
Views: 2,902
Got my K-3 II body and 50mm manual yesterday. Did some throwaway shots last night. Frankly, it's spooky. I can take shots now that look just like the old shots, (color tone, composition, highlights, shadows), but while the old shots were totally unusable, these are sharp and fine grained.
The funny thing is, I think I have an aversion to shots like these from years of shooting with the K10D. They're usually orange from incandescent or sodium lamps, or a mix of orange, green and red from competing color temp bulbs, have saturated colors and heavy shadows. I usually import them, push them as far as I can in RAW, get them to the point that they're technically presentable but repulsively artificial. By then I'm convinced that they're irredeemable and I delete them and move on.
I see these shots, and I'm still sort of repulsed out of habit. It seems wrong somehow that they look just like my throwaways but are now perfectly usable.
I guess I expected the quality of the capture or the quality of the light to be different somehow, But it's not. They're the same photos but better rendered. This'll take some getting used to.

I also got a 95mbps memory card. That coupled with this incredibly nimble shutter... I can't believe the speed.
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 06-20-2015, 09:08 PM  
K-3/k-3 ii iso
Posted By Dr. Zee
Replies: 27
Views: 2,902
It's been through the wringer. Viewfinder cracked up from a bike wreck, takes a pen to open the memory card slot, needs a cleaning. it works fine but, I bet I'd get $50 for it.
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 06-19-2015, 12:41 AM  
K-3/k-3 ii iso
Posted By Dr. Zee
Replies: 27
Views: 2,902
Just bought a K-3 II body from B&H, a Super Takumar 50mm f1.4 and a m42 adapter off of eBay.

And now for the wait.
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 06-17-2015, 11:08 PM  
K-3/k-3 ii iso
Posted By Dr. Zee
Replies: 27
Views: 2,902
I kind of need a new general purpose kit lens. I can afford the K-3 II body, but not with the lens. I'm considering getting the K-3 II and just grabbing some older M42 mount primes and trying my hand at manual focus for a while.
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 06-15-2015, 04:29 PM  
K-3/k-3 ii iso
Posted By Dr. Zee
Replies: 27
Views: 2,902
Awesome. Thank you everyone.
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 06-15-2015, 12:52 PM  
K-3/k-3 ii iso
Posted By Dr. Zee
Replies: 27
Views: 2,902
Shooting RAW, primarily color.

---------- Post added 06-15-15 at 01:01 PM ----------

Yeah, when I say noise, I'm not talking about anything Raw processing can weed out. I'm talking NOISE.
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 06-15-2015, 12:22 PM  
K-3/k-3 ii iso
Posted By Dr. Zee
Replies: 27
Views: 2,902
Any thoughts on low-light? Bar/club/rock show/wedding receptions? Assuming I have a fast lens. Should I expect banding? I'm really tired of 1 in 10 being in focus, and those only because people were still. I want some actual human emotion in my low-light photos.

---------- Post added 06-15-15 at 12:32 PM ----------

I guess I'm asking if there is a typical ISO threshold where banding tends to occur.
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 06-15-2015, 11:39 AM  
K-3/k-3 ii iso
Posted By Dr. Zee
Replies: 27
Views: 2,902
I'm still shooting with my first DSLR, the K10D. Overall I've been very happy with it, aside from one thing, the ISO. I've experienced terrible image noise issues with my K10D, usually linked with ISO. I'm basically stuck with my max range as 800 or I get image ruining noise and banding.

Recently I've been looking through flickr metadata on shots that I like, and I'm noticing a low-light theme where standout images are shot at massive ISO numbers, from 1600-32,000.

It's time to upgrade, and I'm thinking seriously of the K-3 (I'm on a tight budget), but I read in a few reviews that it has some image noise issues.

Can anyone weight in? Happy with noise levels? Unhappy? Words of wisdom?
Search took 0.00 seconds | Showing results 1 to 22 of 22

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:57 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top