Across Riddlesdown, at 14mm
Posted 07/04/2014 - 16:40
Link
CMW wrote:
Good, a conclusion .... surely.
Surely no, It's only been 7 pages and the question was only asked a month ago, There surely must be another months worth of............
Good, a conclusion .... surely.
Posted 07/04/2014 - 16:51
Link
McGregNi wrote:
These are all valiant & superb efforts. What I do find curious, and a bit ironic, is the extraordinary commitment to the single file option .... originally this debate kicked off with comments about the non-necessity for HDR, and how much more trouble it was - the word 'hassle' was used to describe it. This seemed to be mostly accepted. But here we are still trying to prove that we can find one ideal single exposure and process it to perfection .... and it has taken many pages of discussion and describing of software techniques .... and still its all in the name of finding something that equates to or nearly equates to the original HDR!!! I may well still argue its not there yet.
Where is the real hassle?? As I said earlier, truth is, the creation of the HDR (both the bracket shooting and the Photomatix work) was painless - no tripod required and the processing was easily sorted with the 'natural' Tone Compressor preset and a few small tweaks here & there. Even NR, aberration correction, de-ghosting and image alignment was taken care of automatically while I sat back for about 45secs.
Even if I had one single perfect exposure it would take far more effort to optimize it, involving inevitably a big compromise somewhere to strike the right balance between sky & ground. From what Andrew & Rob have been demonstrating, it would seem that in order to get an acceptable single exposure of this scene we would need to shoot at about -2.5 stops compensation in order to get a good sky, producing a near black ground in the process, and then crank up all the shadow recovery and lifting processing oomph we can muster out of Lightroom or PS, just to return the ground to something we can see properly again.
How can this be any good for IQ? The camera sensor records most of its quality data in the upper half of the spectrum - thats the rationale behind 'ETTR'. By underexposing most of the scene are we not throwing away so much of the best quality data the camera could record?
The HDR technique gives us the best of it all - each bracketed exposure is optimal for a certain band of DR, right from the darkest (which gives us the best sky highlights here) through to the brightest (which gives us the shadow areas smack in the middle of the sensors sweet spot.) The software does most of the rest, along with the users careful and subtle control.
I remind you all - no one knew this image was HDR until I said so. Then all of a sudden it was 'no need for HDR for this scene, one shot would do it, etc etc'. Does it seem so clear cut now?
It doesn't matter whether we knew it was "hdr" or not. I wouldn't even consider them HDR in the acepeted sense of acidtrip cartoon effectsThese are all valiant & superb efforts. What I do find curious, and a bit ironic, is the extraordinary commitment to the single file option .... originally this debate kicked off with comments about the non-necessity for HDR, and how much more trouble it was - the word 'hassle' was used to describe it. This seemed to be mostly accepted. But here we are still trying to prove that we can find one ideal single exposure and process it to perfection .... and it has taken many pages of discussion and describing of software techniques .... and still its all in the name of finding something that equates to or nearly equates to the original HDR!!! I may well still argue its not there yet.
Where is the real hassle?? As I said earlier, truth is, the creation of the HDR (both the bracket shooting and the Photomatix work) was painless - no tripod required and the processing was easily sorted with the 'natural' Tone Compressor preset and a few small tweaks here & there. Even NR, aberration correction, de-ghosting and image alignment was taken care of automatically while I sat back for about 45secs.
Even if I had one single perfect exposure it would take far more effort to optimize it, involving inevitably a big compromise somewhere to strike the right balance between sky & ground. From what Andrew & Rob have been demonstrating, it would seem that in order to get an acceptable single exposure of this scene we would need to shoot at about -2.5 stops compensation in order to get a good sky, producing a near black ground in the process, and then crank up all the shadow recovery and lifting processing oomph we can muster out of Lightroom or PS, just to return the ground to something we can see properly again.
How can this be any good for IQ? The camera sensor records most of its quality data in the upper half of the spectrum - thats the rationale behind 'ETTR'. By underexposing most of the scene are we not throwing away so much of the best quality data the camera could record?
The HDR technique gives us the best of it all - each bracketed exposure is optimal for a certain band of DR, right from the darkest (which gives us the best sky highlights here) through to the brightest (which gives us the shadow areas smack in the middle of the sensors sweet spot.) The software does most of the rest, along with the users careful and subtle control.
I remind you all - no one knew this image was HDR until I said so. Then all of a sudden it was 'no need for HDR for this scene, one shot would do it, etc etc'. Does it seem so clear cut now?
I said it was hassle because I find no need to do it when I can get the same to all intents and purposes from a single shot.
There are a few exceptions such as night shots with brightly lot areas like shop windows, or dark indoor scenes with a bright exterior showing through a window or cave entrance, where shooting more than one exposure and combining is worth the effort.
You have forgotten one aspect of photography which many of us partake in and that's shooting dynamic scenes, such as sports, street, people and so on where it's nigh on impossible to employ and any kind of bracketing.
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Posted 07/04/2014 - 17:39
Link
CMW wrote:
Good, a conclusion .... surely.
I'm glad we're getting there There's been a huge amount of information to digest - I suspect the respective positions may remain somewhat entrenched, but its all good to retain and consider in the future. Good, a conclusion .... surely.
Blythman wrote:
... the images were generally uninspiring, maybe if they had been, they would have had additional scrutiny. I know for my part, I was just looking for someething positive to say
Alan, I'm quite happy about the level of scutiny Anyway, I'm glad you were able to muster up something positive, I appreciate that ... the images were generally uninspiring, maybe if they had been, they would have had additional scrutiny. I know for my part, I was just looking for someething positive to say
Inspiring? I didn't want to inspire anyone - I was just trying to get the K7 to reproduce the natural DR as the eye could see it ....
andrewk wrote:
Simples ......Andrew
Well, thats one interpretation - for me the examples and detailed compared at close range, and the effort expended to get near to the HDR with the single files makes a clear case to me for HDR for this scene, and others similar.
McGregNi wrote:
Does it seem so clear cut now?
Very clear cut. If you prefer your HDR images - then use HDR. I don't, so I won't - unless the scene demands it's use, but that is relatively very rare.Does it seem so clear cut now?
Simples ......Andrew
My Guides to the Pentax Digital Camera Flash Lighting System : Download here from the PentaxForums Homepage Article .... link
Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II Transceiver
Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II Transceiver
Posted 07/04/2014 - 18:40
Link
McGregNi wrote:
for me the examples and detailed compared at close range, and the effort expended to get near to the HDR with the single files makes a clear case to me for HDR for this scene, and others similar.
Fine. I hope you enjoy it. I don't really understand why you think there is extra effort in processing a single RAW -- just a matter of twiddling a few sliders in Lightroom, maybe a couple of minutes. It's a very intuitive tool and the process could hardly be easier.for me the examples and detailed compared at close range, and the effort expended to get near to the HDR with the single files makes a clear case to me for HDR for this scene, and others similar.
On a side issue, I found it interesting that you used the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 lens. I've been wondering whether to get one of those for a while.
Andrew
Posted 07/04/2014 - 19:24
Link
How do you think it performed in this series of shots?
By 'effort' I was meaning the extent of discussion and considerations in choosing the right single exposure as well as the actual editing. I still don't think any single shot example has the IQ of the HDR. Relatively speaking I am saying that the HDR process was fairly effortless and fell quite naturally within the 'sweetspot' of the technique and the software.
Its about assessing each scene - I would advocate an approach of taking the brackets and having them in the bag if there's any doubt.
What are you assessments of the close ups and detail comparisons? Only these can provide the 'proof of the pudding' in terms of this image and the relative effects on IQ of the differing processings.
By 'effort' I was meaning the extent of discussion and considerations in choosing the right single exposure as well as the actual editing. I still don't think any single shot example has the IQ of the HDR. Relatively speaking I am saying that the HDR process was fairly effortless and fell quite naturally within the 'sweetspot' of the technique and the software.
Its about assessing each scene - I would advocate an approach of taking the brackets and having them in the bag if there's any doubt.
Smeggypants wrote:
... It doesn't matter whether we knew it was "hdr" or not. I wouldn't even consider them HDR in the acepeted sense of acidtrip cartoon effects .... I said it was hassle because I find no need to do it when I can get the same to all intents and purposes from a single shot.
Well, thats one idea of what HDR is - for me its nothing to do with acid trips.Its just a technique to record more visible DR when needed - from the evidence here I still interpret it as 'needed' in this case. The alternatives presented introduce too many compromises and represent more extreme pulling around of the image than the quite comfortable HDR work.... It doesn't matter whether we knew it was "hdr" or not. I wouldn't even consider them HDR in the acepeted sense of acidtrip cartoon effects .... I said it was hassle because I find no need to do it when I can get the same to all intents and purposes from a single shot.
What are you assessments of the close ups and detail comparisons? Only these can provide the 'proof of the pudding' in terms of this image and the relative effects on IQ of the differing processings.
My Guides to the Pentax Digital Camera Flash Lighting System : Download here from the PentaxForums Homepage Article .... link
Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II Transceiver
Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II Transceiver
Posted 07/04/2014 - 23:32
Link
McGregNi wrote:
How do you think it performed in this series of shots?
It is hard to tell for images at that size - it looks "OK". There is no EXIF data - so I don't know what apertures you used. The "darkest" DNG is a bit soft in the bottom LH corner, but that could be a focussing issue.How do you think it performed in this series of shots?
So what do you reckon? Would you recommend the lens?
Andrew
Posted 08/04/2014 - 18:46
Link
Guess this is wrapping up now, and no better way then answering the question about the Samyang 14mm. There's been plenty of previous discussion and here's a couple of links which have some good info ...
https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/samyang----35676/p-0#comm_507029
https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/samyang-14mm-f-2-8-ed-as-if-36746/p-0#comm_420864
Its a high quality item, solid and built like a tank. The focus ring has a huge throw and so is very precise, and it has an a-ring for auto-exposure control on Pentax DSLRs. Its resolution data puts it ahead of the FF Nikon equivalent, and all for about £280 new.
As referred to near the start of this long thread, it can't take filters due to the fixed petal hood and bulbous front element ... but, hey, don't let that put you off - you could always shoot some brackets and do some HDR processing !!!!!
https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/samyang----35676/p-0#comm_507029
https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/samyang-14mm-f-2-8-ed-as-if-36746/p-0#comm_420864
Its a high quality item, solid and built like a tank. The focus ring has a huge throw and so is very precise, and it has an a-ring for auto-exposure control on Pentax DSLRs. Its resolution data puts it ahead of the FF Nikon equivalent, and all for about £280 new.
As referred to near the start of this long thread, it can't take filters due to the fixed petal hood and bulbous front element ... but, hey, don't let that put you off - you could always shoot some brackets and do some HDR processing !!!!!
My Guides to the Pentax Digital Camera Flash Lighting System : Download here from the PentaxForums Homepage Article .... link
Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II Transceiver
Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II Transceiver
Posted 08/04/2014 - 19:24
Link
I did - I used LR/Enfuse in Lightroom to merge your "darker" and "darkest" DNGs into a single JPEG. There is no practical difference between that and the JPEG just from "darkest".
Andrew
Andrew
Posted 08/04/2014 - 20:40
Link
Oh dear, this ones going to keep on coming back! I've enjoyed it all, thanks to everyone who's chipped in, and especially to Rob & Andrew for putting up such a spirited defense. May the debate continue elsewhere ....
My Guides to the Pentax Digital Camera Flash Lighting System : Download here from the PentaxForums Homepage Article .... link
Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II Transceiver
Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II Transceiver
Posted 08/04/2014 - 22:48
Link
Of course it's going to keep coming back.
It just so happens that one of the darktable devs sent out a testing request for an enhanced highlight reconstruction module so I thought I'd better give it a go, hence another single image from the 'darker' original posted here
I can now join Andrew in saying that not only do I think this image has no need of HDR but there is no need to go to the 'darkest' image either. I can now pull this back at the touch of a slider from the 'darker' image and completely eradicate the blown out highlights - I've backed it off and left some on the cloud edges as I think the image is better for the touch of brightness.
And a quick apology to Andrew, no I couldn't see any difference in details (only colour between your 'darker' and 'darkest' crops. I can see differences between those and some of your other posted images but obviously those weren't the ones you were comparing - it's got almost impossible now to sort out where the threads relate.
It just so happens that one of the darktable devs sent out a testing request for an enhanced highlight reconstruction module so I thought I'd better give it a go, hence another single image from the 'darker' original posted here
I can now join Andrew in saying that not only do I think this image has no need of HDR but there is no need to go to the 'darkest' image either. I can now pull this back at the touch of a slider from the 'darker' image and completely eradicate the blown out highlights - I've backed it off and left some on the cloud edges as I think the image is better for the touch of brightness.
And a quick apology to Andrew, no I couldn't see any difference in details (only colour between your 'darker' and 'darkest' crops. I can see differences between those and some of your other posted images but obviously those weren't the ones you were comparing - it's got almost impossible now to sort out where the threads relate.
Posted 09/04/2014 - 10:16
Link
CMW wrote:
Good, a conclusion .... surely.
Apparently not Good, a conclusion .... surely.
Thanks for the new work Rob ... I've no doubt that's some impressive highlight recovery going on there, and thats another one to throw into the mix - I've yet to compare closely Andrew's last (the LR Enfuse version of the 2 DNGs) with my own HDR, but give a me a day or so and I'll put them together with this one as well. A lot depends of course on what exactly we rate and value mostly ... I've got a few 'quality parameters' in my mind that I apply automatically, and so far the HDR comes out on top - but that is probably the reason that I choose the HDR anyway, beacuse it matches my own personal quality test in terms of look, and the type of detail.
So personal style preferences come into it as well. But I still suspect that single shot or 2 shot 'blends' represent a bigger processing 'heave' than the (as I described before, an 'effortless' HDR process), with the start point the 'natural' tone compressor preset, and a few minor tweaks.
My Guides to the Pentax Digital Camera Flash Lighting System : Download here from the PentaxForums Homepage Article .... link
Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II Transceiver
Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II Transceiver
Posted 09/04/2014 - 10:34
Link
Have we then now accepted that HDR isn't 'necessary' to produce a reasonable rendition of this scene and are now solely discussing which technique can produce the best results?
Posted 09/04/2014 - 11:58
Link
gwing wrote:
Have we then now accepted that HDR isn't 'necessary' to produce a reasonable rendition of this scene and are now solely discussing which technique can produce the best results?
For both the images "darker" and "darkest" captured by Nigel, I think post processing technology is now such that a reasonable rendition of the scene can be produced without using HDR software. For other scenes, that may not be the case.Have we then now accepted that HDR isn't 'necessary' to produce a reasonable rendition of this scene and are now solely discussing which technique can produce the best results?
I think it is important to do whatever is possible to capture the best image(s) to minimise the extent of the post processing required. In general, I try to ETTR (Expose To The Right) but may also use ND grads or take bracketed shots if I think that might give me a better result.
As a rule, it would probably only occur to me to use HDR software if I thought it was imposssible to get a decent result without it - e.g. photo of something in a cave that also included part of the entrance or the example Smeggy gave of lit shop windows on a poorly lit street. In most/all of those cases, I'd want to use a tripod.
Andrew
Posted 10/04/2014 - 09:04
Link
That is the traditional thinking - that is being challenged here really, and it has been my suspicion for a while that we may be accepting a rendition of such scenes that is in fact constrained by the technology of single shots and the processing, but does not in fact display the DR as the eye can discern. Its been great to explore this in such detail.
What is 'reasonable? Different for everyone of course, but for myself I'm not satisfied with the tonal and textural qualities of any of the single shot versions. They are heroic efforts and expertly wrung from the single DNG, but don't give the feel and depth that the HDR version does IMO. This I can only assume is due to the exposure principle needed to capture them - ie, non-conventional highly underexposed. Now this is not playing to the sensor's strengths, putting mid tones and everything below well into the lower half of the spectrum, the part where the sensor is weakest. Then you have to crank up the brightness from that data.
The HDR on the other hand records bands of data and has one record of each brightness level sitting in the sensor sweetspot. Is it reasonable to have to make such a compromise with IQ just to produce an OK rendering of the scene from a single shot?
What is 'reasonable? Different for everyone of course, but for myself I'm not satisfied with the tonal and textural qualities of any of the single shot versions. They are heroic efforts and expertly wrung from the single DNG, but don't give the feel and depth that the HDR version does IMO. This I can only assume is due to the exposure principle needed to capture them - ie, non-conventional highly underexposed. Now this is not playing to the sensor's strengths, putting mid tones and everything below well into the lower half of the spectrum, the part where the sensor is weakest. Then you have to crank up the brightness from that data.
The HDR on the other hand records bands of data and has one record of each brightness level sitting in the sensor sweetspot. Is it reasonable to have to make such a compromise with IQ just to produce an OK rendering of the scene from a single shot?
My Guides to the Pentax Digital Camera Flash Lighting System : Download here from the PentaxForums Homepage Article .... link
Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II Transceiver
Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II Transceiver
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
558 posts
15 years
ChristopherWheelerPhotography