"It's all about the glass". Show me examples please


Smeggypants

Link Posted 18/09/2012 - 00:24
womble wrote:
Smeggypants wrote:
Quote:
The K7 or K20D is pretty useless at anything over 400ISO

I think you'll have trouble selling that claim to most K20D/K7 owners or pre-owners...

I have no idea what posting a K-5 image has to do with the K20D A complete non sequitur, I fear.

not at all. I posted the 'sequitur' quite clearly. to repeat

"I think you'll have trouble selling that claim to most K20D/K7 owners or pre-owners. The K5 is indeed 3 stops better than the K20D/K7 and no one would say the K5 is useless above 3200."
[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

Algernon

Link Posted 18/09/2012 - 10:48
McGregNi wrote:
In defence of the lowly K7's capabilities, here are a couple of shots I took recently - iso 1600, no flash, lens was an 'A' 28mm f2.8. I did remove some shadow noise, but the edge detail was easily bought back.

They are both fine and the K-7 is suitable for that kind of lighting which still has a full tonal range and a lot of highlights.

The K-5 is better when the light is dull and mostly dark tones and the amount that can be pulled back if you under expose.

This is a shot that I would never have recovered on the K20D...
I would have got nothing but noise
You can see the exposure was set for outside of the shaded tree...
It was a quick grab shot I had been photographing birds
out of the shade ... It's also a massive crop!






I've not gone overboard with the PP.... I think I pulled it
back 1 1/2 stops and got this....





This was with the Sigma 150-500mm at 500mm handheld 1/125th f/7.1
400ISO

-
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff

Algi
Last Edited by Algernon on 18/09/2012 - 10:49

tyronet2000

Link Posted 18/09/2012 - 12:53
Quote:
...This was with the Sigma 150-500mm at 500mm handheld 1/125th f/7.1
400ISO

Wow! your hands must be as steady as a Brain Surgeon
Regards
Stan

PPG

Algernon

Link Posted 18/09/2012 - 13:22
tyronet2000 wrote:
Quote:
...This was with the Sigma 150-500mm at 500mm handheld 1/125th f/7.1
400ISO

Wow! your hands must be as steady as a Brain Surgeon

It's the spots of superglue under each forearm that
does the trick!
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff

Algi

Transit

Link Posted 19/09/2012 - 10:39
Here is the M-85/2 and the FA77Ltd both at f2.
no pp just converted, slight crop
Seems to be all about the glass alright
Pete
K-1 K-01 Q-7
some len

Close to the Edge
Down by the River
Last Edited by Transit on 19/09/2012 - 10:48

Transit

Link Posted 19/09/2012 - 10:46
couldn't edit them into previous post for some reason





K-1 K-01 Q-7
some len

Close to the Edge
Down by the River

SMarsden

Link Posted 21/09/2012 - 18:13
Couldnt agree more

robbiec wrote:
Try getting this with a Sigma or Tamron.



As reference, the background is a window & wall roughly 2 feet behind.
K-5 & A50 f/1.2 @ f/1.2 (so yeah, its about the glass )


My website

Flickr

Pentax Photo Gallery

"Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong" Carl Sagan

Transit

Link Posted 21/09/2012 - 22:17
robbiec wrote:
Try getting this with a Sigma or Tamron.
....

mmm, my Tamron 90/2.5 would have a pretty good run at it
K-1 K-01 Q-7
some len

Close to the Edge
Down by the River

rparmar

Link Posted 22/09/2012 - 14:24
dinneenp wrote:
All of my lenses I'd consider fast (tamron 17-50 f2.8, Sigma70-200 f2.8, Pentax 100mm macro 2.8 and Sigma 30mm f2.

I do not consider those first lenses particularly fast. A lens f/2 or greater will allow you greater control over depth of field, but of course it depends on focal length and distance to subject. So you need to figure out which parameters you want to fix, and which you are happy to vary; otherwise no sane comparison can be made.

Certain lenses have particular aberrations that some shooters like. These lenses are deliberately used to "paint" the frame with "swirly bokeh" or some other effect.

Lenses not only render the in-focus and out-of-focus regions differently, but also render the changes between these regions in distinctive ways. The FA Limiteds spring to mind as examples.

Of course there are enormous differences in acuity from different lenses.

There are literally thousands of comparisons on the internet thingy that demonstrate these three factors... among others. (Even I have some on my blog). All lenses are certainly not made equal, even at the same focal length and aperture. But the only way to approach the problem is to first specify the goal you are trying to attain.
Listen to my albums free on BandCamp. Or visit my main website for links to photography, etc.
Last Edited by rparmar on 22/09/2012 - 14:27
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.