Switch over to ist
Posted 01/01/2006 - 17:09
Link
First, don't believe all you read about Pentax and focussing. Very few Pentax users complain about focussing, and it's really only an issue if you shoot sports.
Second, there is no such thing as a good .66 tele-adapter. You'll just have to get used to the multiplier effect, and fork out for a new wide-angle. As you appear to like zooms, you'll be very pleased with the Pentax 16-45mm, which equates to 24-68mm in 35mm terms. It'll knock spots off your existing zooms.
Your 50mm lems will of course become a superb portrait lens.
All makes of digital cameras with sophisticated flash systems have problems with metering the flash off the sensor. Metering from the film gives more consistent results than metering from a digital sensor. However, because you can instantly review what you've taken, it's much easier to use manual flash than with a film camera. Also, of course, flashguns with their own sensor work just as well as they do on film cameras.
It's probably true to say that film still just has the edge over digital when it comes to b&w, but digital ain't bad. When it comes to colour, there's no contest because you can do so much more to improve the image with digital than you can with colour film. However, some may disagree!
Have you seen these pictures from someone who has just started shooting b&w on a DS?
https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2076
G
Second, there is no such thing as a good .66 tele-adapter. You'll just have to get used to the multiplier effect, and fork out for a new wide-angle. As you appear to like zooms, you'll be very pleased with the Pentax 16-45mm, which equates to 24-68mm in 35mm terms. It'll knock spots off your existing zooms.
Your 50mm lems will of course become a superb portrait lens.
All makes of digital cameras with sophisticated flash systems have problems with metering the flash off the sensor. Metering from the film gives more consistent results than metering from a digital sensor. However, because you can instantly review what you've taken, it's much easier to use manual flash than with a film camera. Also, of course, flashguns with their own sensor work just as well as they do on film cameras.
It's probably true to say that film still just has the edge over digital when it comes to b&w, but digital ain't bad. When it comes to colour, there's no contest because you can do so much more to improve the image with digital than you can with colour film. However, some may disagree!
Have you seen these pictures from someone who has just started shooting b&w on a DS?
https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2076
G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.
Posted 02/01/2006 - 16:18
Link
I hate to dissagree with George, but digital black and white is incredible. You can achieve effects and techniques in computer, that were time/labour/skill intensive and even impossible in the darkroom, with simple tools like pse. You don't get channels with elements but you can use two hue/saturation adjustments layers over your color imige to simulate any combination of filtration. You have all contrast controls plus dodgeing and burning. The noise filter.
You can simulate your favorite film and paper combos, plus tinting, and with the right printer/ink create gallery quality prints up to 11x14 easily.
You can simulate your favorite film and paper combos, plus tinting, and with the right printer/ink create gallery quality prints up to 11x14 easily.
Fired many shots. Didn't kill anything.
Posted 02/01/2006 - 18:10
Link
Don,
I was expecting somebody to disagree with the statement that digital colour was better than colour film!
The b&w people whom I know reckon that a digital print still can't compare with a pure analogue print. Since I don't do b&w I can only repeat what they have said. I'm interested to hear that you think digital is better.
It would be interesting to hear what the other b&w people have to say.
G
I was expecting somebody to disagree with the statement that digital colour was better than colour film!
The b&w people whom I know reckon that a digital print still can't compare with a pure analogue print. Since I don't do b&w I can only repeat what they have said. I'm interested to hear that you think digital is better.
It would be interesting to hear what the other b&w people have to say.
G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.
Posted 02/01/2006 - 19:19
Link
The very best monochrome darkroom print is a thing of rare beauty. I have seen some printed by much better printers than I, and they are truly stunning. Typically they have been printed to 20" x 16" on fibre based paper.
Digital cannot reach this highest standard. However, for most of us, digital can produce excellent prints at A3+ and in some cases these can be better than darkroom prints.
The analogy to Hi-Fi has been made before, but in essense the highest quality is obtained from Vinyl. In practice, for most of us the CD will be clearly superior.
Digital cannot reach this highest standard. However, for most of us, digital can produce excellent prints at A3+ and in some cases these can be better than darkroom prints.
The analogy to Hi-Fi has been made before, but in essense the highest quality is obtained from Vinyl. In practice, for most of us the CD will be clearly superior.
Best regards, John
Posted 02/01/2006 - 21:26
Link
To return to Simon's point about focussing, I think Pentax are pretty much on a par with other makes and I doubt that there's any difference between the *istD, DS or DL. The only real difference is the number of AF points and most discerning users switch to center point anyway - thus eliminating the difference!
Multi-point AF systems were developed to speed up the focussing process during rapid fire point and shoot photography. By and large the system works well and ensures a reasonable percentage of accurately focused snapshots, where the photographer doesn't have the time to precisely focus on a certain point and then recompose for the final image.
I personally prefer to set the hyperfocal distance on the lens in use and set the camera to manual for such occasions and leave the camera set to AF single, for more precise work.
Canon have possibly just had the edge over others for some time, due partly because of the floating elements within their 'ultrasonic' lenses, but there's really not much in it and sticking with Pentax would mean that all your current lenses and accessories would be usable.
Multi-point AF systems were developed to speed up the focussing process during rapid fire point and shoot photography. By and large the system works well and ensures a reasonable percentage of accurately focused snapshots, where the photographer doesn't have the time to precisely focus on a certain point and then recompose for the final image.
I personally prefer to set the hyperfocal distance on the lens in use and set the camera to manual for such occasions and leave the camera set to AF single, for more precise work.
Canon have possibly just had the edge over others for some time, due partly because of the floating elements within their 'ultrasonic' lenses, but there's really not much in it and sticking with Pentax would mean that all your current lenses and accessories would be usable.
Die my dear doctor, that's the last thing I shall do!
Posted 03/01/2006 - 04:00
Link
I think anybody who wants to learn b+w will be surprised at how good digital from color conversions can be, and how easy to learn.
I think the resurgance, and wave of immence popularity of digital b+w, will resemble the tidalwave of digital colorshooters, with traditional diehards being the last to admit it. Of course this in no way dimminishes the true beauty of traditional film/printing, but rather pushes the envelope of what people percieve as high quality work as digital puts high quality into the hands of the masses. Not everybody could've produced work that was sellable a few years ago, but now it's possible for many.
By the way, the image on my website of my hand and my enfants son's hand, was shot with a canon g5 in color and was a multi-layered ps file which even had one layer partially solarized, was printed 16x16 (color c41)and displayed at a local gallerie and has fooled several pro photographers who thought it was silverhalide, printed traditionally.
I drool over the prospect of what could be done with that new digital 645...
And to be clear I didn't go so far as to say digital was better than silver, but I think it has the edge in terms of ease of use, quality and cost as a total package. As a tool to do the job, it is incredible.
Better ultimately, boils down to the talent and skill of the image maker relative to what the viewer who is seeing/buying the work thinks.
In my books, if I can sell just as many, for just as much, with no noticable loss of quality and a lot less work, then it's better...someone else may think my work is crap..good for them they're entitled to thiers.
I think the resurgance, and wave of immence popularity of digital b+w, will resemble the tidalwave of digital colorshooters, with traditional diehards being the last to admit it. Of course this in no way dimminishes the true beauty of traditional film/printing, but rather pushes the envelope of what people percieve as high quality work as digital puts high quality into the hands of the masses. Not everybody could've produced work that was sellable a few years ago, but now it's possible for many.
By the way, the image on my website of my hand and my enfants son's hand, was shot with a canon g5 in color and was a multi-layered ps file which even had one layer partially solarized, was printed 16x16 (color c41)and displayed at a local gallerie and has fooled several pro photographers who thought it was silverhalide, printed traditionally.
I drool over the prospect of what could be done with that new digital 645...
And to be clear I didn't go so far as to say digital was better than silver, but I think it has the edge in terms of ease of use, quality and cost as a total package. As a tool to do the job, it is incredible.
Better ultimately, boils down to the talent and skill of the image maker relative to what the viewer who is seeing/buying the work thinks.
In my books, if I can sell just as many, for just as much, with no noticable loss of quality and a lot less work, then it's better...someone else may think my work is crap..good for them they're entitled to thiers.
Fired many shots. Didn't kill anything.
Posted 03/01/2006 - 07:52
Link
Don,
When I said that film probably just has the edge over digital when it comes to b&w, I was referring only to ultimate print quality, and should perhaps have made that clear.
Next time I'm in Canada I'll drop by andf have a look at your digi prints.
Best wishes
G
When I said that film probably just has the edge over digital when it comes to b&w, I was referring only to ultimate print quality, and should perhaps have made that clear.
Next time I'm in Canada I'll drop by andf have a look at your digi prints.
Best wishes
G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.
Posted 03/01/2006 - 09:34
Link
It's an interesting subject - the B&W
Most of the problem is that the printing output is trying to get black and grey by combining CMYK or RGB and you often get colour shifts and metamerism etc.
However, I've often wondered about digitally printing a slide with www.micro-quiz.co.uk (very good price and from what I've heard, excellent quality - indistinguishable from a regular slide. They now do 8000dpi output!!), and then hand printing a B&W print. Obviously you can edit in PS in positive, then negative it for output to the slide. I'd love to know what the results would be like if anyone feels like experimenting
Matt
Most of the problem is that the printing output is trying to get black and grey by combining CMYK or RGB and you often get colour shifts and metamerism etc.
However, I've often wondered about digitally printing a slide with www.micro-quiz.co.uk (very good price and from what I've heard, excellent quality - indistinguishable from a regular slide. They now do 8000dpi output!!), and then hand printing a B&W print. Obviously you can edit in PS in positive, then negative it for output to the slide. I'd love to know what the results would be like if anyone feels like experimenting
Matt
Posted 03/01/2006 - 12:19
Link
Thank you for all the replies. I must admit, I prefer the looks of the DS to the cannon. I just wish that Pentax made a full frame sensor but saying that, look at the price of such a camera.
There's one thing that was not mentioned, the filters. Apart from the UV and say the polarised, do you really need filters? What can they achieve that PhotoShop or Paint shop can't?
On the subject of digital and traditional, when it comes to small prints, say up to A4. I think there is little difference other than the quality of the printer/camera. It is more to do with preference. However, when it comes to A3 and above, providing the equipment is clean and free of dust, then traditional wins when resolution of digital comes an issue. Saying that, I've seen some awesome A1 prints with that Mamiya 22Mp medium format digital camera. Shame about the awesome price tag that comes with it.
There's one thing that was not mentioned, the filters. Apart from the UV and say the polarised, do you really need filters? What can they achieve that PhotoShop or Paint shop can't?
On the subject of digital and traditional, when it comes to small prints, say up to A4. I think there is little difference other than the quality of the printer/camera. It is more to do with preference. However, when it comes to A3 and above, providing the equipment is clean and free of dust, then traditional wins when resolution of digital comes an issue. Saying that, I've seen some awesome A1 prints with that Mamiya 22Mp medium format digital camera. Shame about the awesome price tag that comes with it.
Posted 03/01/2006 - 12:34
Link
Simon
Regarding filters, I use a UV0 to protect the lens, a circular polariser, and a pile of ND and ND grads. These definitely help - especially in landscape photography
Taking your comment about print quality... I've had great results from Photobox in the UK. However, having printed stuff to ProAM Imaging at 402dpi their output is positively stunning - absolutely no resolution problems at 16x20" from a straight 6mp image from the *ist-D. Looking at their output, I reckon I could go larger and still have no problems.
That said, optimising for output (especially sharpness) is another art form in itself... and if you find a good print service that does what you want - stick with it!
It is surprising what you can get out of a 6mp output, given a bit of care, practise, and time
Matt
Regarding filters, I use a UV0 to protect the lens, a circular polariser, and a pile of ND and ND grads. These definitely help - especially in landscape photography
Taking your comment about print quality... I've had great results from Photobox in the UK. However, having printed stuff to ProAM Imaging at 402dpi their output is positively stunning - absolutely no resolution problems at 16x20" from a straight 6mp image from the *ist-D. Looking at their output, I reckon I could go larger and still have no problems.
That said, optimising for output (especially sharpness) is another art form in itself... and if you find a good print service that does what you want - stick with it!
It is surprising what you can get out of a 6mp output, given a bit of care, practise, and time
Matt
Posted 03/01/2006 - 17:19
Link
George, what I know to be true is this...
In any art, sport or field of work, there are different levels of accomplishment and skill. The better one gets the tougher the competition gets. Races that once got setttled by car lengths, need lasers and cameras to settle who won by a fraction of an inch. Where one maritial artist breaks three bricks, the next tries to break the one in the middle, leaving the other two intact.
At some point photographers get to the level where basics become reflex, lighting set-ups become habitual, timing is always bang on, and competitions get down to splitting hairs.
You have to split those hairs because the work is so good. I would not presume to judge your work, the fact is this..It's damn good...and the subjective nature of all art forms is subject to the whimsy of the people seeing the work means hacks sometimes get thier 15 minutes of fame while true talents go unrecognized. I recognize that if I listen to you and others in this forum, there is a goldmine here. A wealth of talent and knowledge learning. But I really listen to the people who buy my work above all others. Thier whimsy becomes my bread and butter.
I believe the edge for film is gone, but that has yet to become widely accepted. You'll see more and more b+w digital images winning competitions and contests. and the competitions will be tougher. The fact that there's a debate at all is proof enough for me.
I don't want to forget that. In order to continue selling work, my work is going to have to be better than it has ever been.
It would be foolish to argue about which brick to break makes you the best maritial artist, and forget that a moderate blow below the left pectoral can drop you dead in your tracks.
In any art, sport or field of work, there are different levels of accomplishment and skill. The better one gets the tougher the competition gets. Races that once got setttled by car lengths, need lasers and cameras to settle who won by a fraction of an inch. Where one maritial artist breaks three bricks, the next tries to break the one in the middle, leaving the other two intact.
At some point photographers get to the level where basics become reflex, lighting set-ups become habitual, timing is always bang on, and competitions get down to splitting hairs.
You have to split those hairs because the work is so good. I would not presume to judge your work, the fact is this..It's damn good...and the subjective nature of all art forms is subject to the whimsy of the people seeing the work means hacks sometimes get thier 15 minutes of fame while true talents go unrecognized. I recognize that if I listen to you and others in this forum, there is a goldmine here. A wealth of talent and knowledge learning. But I really listen to the people who buy my work above all others. Thier whimsy becomes my bread and butter.
I believe the edge for film is gone, but that has yet to become widely accepted. You'll see more and more b+w digital images winning competitions and contests. and the competitions will be tougher. The fact that there's a debate at all is proof enough for me.
I don't want to forget that. In order to continue selling work, my work is going to have to be better than it has ever been.
It would be foolish to argue about which brick to break makes you the best maritial artist, and forget that a moderate blow below the left pectoral can drop you dead in your tracks.
Fired many shots. Didn't kill anything.
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
84 posts
20 years
My main interests in photography are black & white, protaits and nights. I have a sigma 28-300mm and 400mm, pentax 35-800mm, 80-200mm and 50mm 1.7 lenses. I also have a number of 67mm filters and a zoom, bounce external flash gun
I have considered two choices, folking out on new equipment. However I would seriously consider cannon because of quick focusing system in all conditions. Or stick with pentax and save money on new lenses and filters.
I don't fancy the cheaper ist DL because of the poor focusing system, slow and non-exsistance in darker lighting. I've never tried out the more expensive ist DL model. Can anyone who own this model tell me what the focusing system is like, Fast? Can focus in poor conditions?
There's also the subject of focal mutliplier. I don't fancy the thought of having my sigma 28-300mm being turned into a approx. 42-450mm. I've looked at some x.66 tele adaptors but is there a issue of distortion and colour shift?
Has there been any issues reported with external flash guns when converting to digital?
Cheers!!