New K20D shots - I'm happy

A nice surprise for me. I got the K20D and am thrilled with it. I'm even more thrilled with these pictures when you read something about them at the bottom of this post...

These were both taken at 500mm and the subject was quite some distance away:

Little Egret:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/chirpy_uk/2297843273/

Red Shank:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/chirpy_uk/2298651008/

Cropped and PP'd (mostly some sharpening) from original DNG's.

Now for the bit I'm thrilled about: I'm happy to accept that these pictures are not of the finest quality - however, they're 100% crops

For someone that's now taking mostly macro and long-distance birding shots, this is a real real boon for me

WOW

My thoughts as well

Here's another I just finished processing:

Little Egret:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/chirpy_uk/2298714878/in/photostream/

Very nice indeed!

Does it feel any different in actual use to your GX10?

A little. The K10D was always different from the GX10, and the K20D seems to have more grippy bits to it. The shutter sound is very different (more of a higher pitched "slide" of a slap). The viewfinder is also a little different (the SR icon appears on the right instead of the left). The weight feels the same.

It doesn't half chew up SD card space now. I've had to update my 2GB ones to 4GB SDHC so I don't have to change them so often.

Im assuming these were taken with a Bigma : Very impressive

I love these photographs, but I hate your terminology. The term 100% crop is absolutely meaningless, used very often, but meaningless just the same.

Can you determine how much of the original has been cropped away, or how much is left. That would mean much more.

Think for a moment . . . 100% crop . . . does that mean you've removed 100%, which leaves nothing, or have you left 100% which means not cropped at all. I hope you understand what I mean.

Still, they are really good shots and I'm insanely jealous. Well done.

I've always used this term, and have always understood it - the image is shown at '100%', so no resizing for the web has been done, and the area shown is 'pixel for pixel', if you like.

So if the image is 800 x 500, that's 800 x 500 pixels cropped from the whole 4000 x 2800 (or whatever).

And I too, am very jealous, that's amazing resolution.

Dan

Actually, you're right. In my enthusiasm I didn't mention that the images here are downsized from the crop

The posted images are resized from the crops which are posted on my flickr account (the ones at 1920x1200) in the manner described by Dan, i.e. take the full sized image at 100% magnification and pixel cut out the image (in this case 1920x1200) from the original.

What this then shows you (on the flickr versions at 1920x1200) is the pixel level of detail captured in the digital image.

(I feel a bit of an *rse for not mentioning that these ones here were downsized - sorry )

Beautiful pictures, Jonathan. Just hope that us common people with merely a K100D will not be let out of the herd...

As to terminology: Crop in Photoshop terms means some area has been removed, or cropped off, if you like. Image resizing is the term for reducing resolution without altering the contents of the picture. IMHO these terms are better to avoid misunderstandings.

Damn. I didn't expect this camera to be that good. I can see a lot of used K10Ds hitting the market.

But kudos to the photographer, too. Those are lovely aesthetically, as well as technically.

G

Well that makes me feel a bit better about the camera (i.e. me not having one), as the full size (1920 x 1200) aren't quite as sharp (but still impressive :roll.

But these really give an idea of what the camera's capable of, can't wait to see some of yours when the bird's a little closer, Chirpy.

Dan

Thank you for the kind comments

It's not from my bigma

What lens did you use? Close scrutiny of the originals shows them to be either a little soft, in need of sharpening, or slightly off focus.

What lens?

There are not many possibilities.

It's not a mirror because Chirpy has used different apertures (and there are no doughnuts, and they're quite sharp).

The Pentax 500mm is a pig to use because of the metering and manual focussing. So it's probably not that.

Can't be a Sigma because the pictures are too good.

So it must be an old MF Tamron. Or a Novoflex.

Correct?

G