All Forum Comments
Comment by Daniel Bridge posted on SD card speeds at 04/03/2009 - 17:55
Have to disagree to a certain extent with Terry - I agree you don't necessarily want to level the shoreline, and you do still want to get the shot level, but these shots aren't level.
As Michal says himself: "there is a broken twig hanging on something (can it be an extremely strong web?) - the line is nearly vertical".
Nearly vertical. It's actually about 2 degrees out, and if you straighten it using this line (probably fishing line), it looks a lot better to me.
With reflection shots like this, I usually look for an element of the image that has a clear reflection, near the centre of the pic, and make sure the element and its reflection are absolutely vertical (if you see what I mean). In the third shot, I might use the edge of the very bright, straight tree just right of centre. In the first shot, the very top leaves of the central tree.
Dan
As Michal says himself: "there is a broken twig hanging on something (can it be an extremely strong web?) - the line is nearly vertical".
Nearly vertical. It's actually about 2 degrees out, and if you straighten it using this line (probably fishing line), it looks a lot better to me.
With reflection shots like this, I usually look for an element of the image that has a clear reflection, near the centre of the pic, and make sure the element and its reflection are absolutely vertical (if you see what I mean). In the third shot, I might use the edge of the very bright, straight tree just right of centre. In the first shot, the very top leaves of the central tree.
Dan
Comment by Daniel Bridge posted on Mirror lake (in Belton House) at 04/03/2009 - 17:53
Don wrote:
I want a cost effective alternative to one of these:
35mm lens adaptors for for shallow dof shots and rack focus.
the d90 would work fine for my needs, but hoping pentax brings out a competitive model....
Surely you more than anyone can knock something up using a bellows set?I want a cost effective alternative to one of these:
35mm lens adaptors for for shallow dof shots and rack focus.
the d90 would work fine for my needs, but hoping pentax brings out a competitive model....
Dan
Comment by Daniel Bridge posted on New Pentax "bridge" (Micro APS-C) leak? at 04/03/2009 - 17:05
Cameraworld in Chelmsford have a S/H Sigma 18-200 with 6 month guarantee for £100. Saw it yesterday, so guessing it's probably still there.
Also had an ex-demo Pentax 50mm macro for £220, a K10D + 16-45 for £450 (S/H I think), and a S/H K200D + 18-55 for £280.
Dan
Also had an ex-demo Pentax 50mm macro for £220, a K10D + 16-45 for £450 (S/H I think), and a S/H K200D + 18-55 for £280.
Dan
Comment by Daniel Bridge posted on Wanted lenses at 03/03/2009 - 19:02
johnriley wrote:
The pentax camera looks very similar to the Samsung NX camera though - what if they are from the same joint project?
Do you really think so, other than just being camera-shaped? The pentax camera looks very similar to the Samsung NX camera though - what if they are from the same joint project?
Dan
Comment by Daniel Bridge posted on New Pentax "bridge" (Micro APS-C) leak? at 03/03/2009 - 18:49
Anvh wrote:
About FA lens on such a micro camera though, why wouldn't it work?
Of course the distance is wrong but it's okay to place a lens further away with extension tubes so I don't see why it wouldn't work the other way around.
If the focus travel was long enough, I suppose it might work, but you would lose any sort of close focusing, so a 50mm lens might focus between 50feet and infinity for example (that's just a rough guess, it would depend on the mount to sensor distance). But for most of its range, it would be focusing way beyond infinity.About FA lens on such a micro camera though, why wouldn't it work?
Of course the distance is wrong but it's okay to place a lens further away with extension tubes so I don't see why it wouldn't work the other way around.
Dan
Comment by Daniel Bridge posted on New Pentax "bridge" (Micro APS-C) leak? at 03/03/2009 - 12:27
Sorry, I didn't mean to emphasise the 'HE', just that my finger lingered on the shift key too long.
Were we talking about filters?
Dan
Were we talking about filters?
Dan
Comment by Daniel Bridge posted on Filter, or not? at 02/03/2009 - 23:50
Anvh wrote:
Well yes I see the confusing but if you name the Lenses differently I don't see the problem.
Have you noticed how many questions there are on here about which lenses working with which cameras? Introducing another type with the same mount, that didn't work at all with the current range, would be ludicrous.Well yes I see the confusing but if you name the Lenses differently I don't see the problem.
Anvh wrote:
The bonus you have is that accessories make for the K-mount will be usable (extension tubes, tele converters, etc.)
Teleconverters wouldn't work without an adaptor to put them the same distance away from the sensor that they are designed for.The bonus you have is that accessories make for the K-mount will be usable (extension tubes, tele converters, etc.)
Anvh wrote:
Those lenses make for the Micro system needs to project a wider image then DA lenses so maybe they also work on full frame. With some luck FA lenses also work on Micro without an adapter. You wouldn't be able to focus as close, I only wander by how much.
Again, no, because of the distance from lens to sensor would be wrong.Those lenses make for the Micro system needs to project a wider image then DA lenses so maybe they also work on full frame. With some luck FA lenses also work on Micro without an adapter. You wouldn't be able to focus as close, I only wander by how much.
Sorry to keep dismissing your suggestions Stefan, but from a practical point of view keeping the same lens mount just isn't practical and I really can't see it happening. If it does I would say it would be a monumental mistake.
As Mongoose says, as long as there is an adaptor that would allow K mount lenses to be mounted on the new mount, that's great. There's no real benefit to using the K mount on this new camera.
Dan
Comment by Daniel Bridge posted on New Pentax "bridge" (Micro APS-C) leak? at 02/03/2009 - 23:28
HE's got very big eyes...
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=jumping+spider&btnG=Google+Search&meta=cr...
I've got the Sigma too - love it.
Dan
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=jumping+spider&btnG=Google+Search&meta=cr...
I've got the Sigma too - love it.
Dan
Comment by Daniel Bridge posted on Filter, or not? at 02/03/2009 - 18:00
Kenty wrote:
I wouldn't get too close to a jumping spider anyway!!
Er, what do you have as your avatar? I wouldn't get too close to a jumping spider anyway!!
Kenty wrote:
I took some close ups of beetles a while ago - they had shiny/reflective backs - maybe a polariser would have helped here?
Possibly, but it would depend on the amount of light you had, and whether they were moving or not, as to whether it would have been practical.I took some close ups of beetles a while ago - they had shiny/reflective backs - maybe a polariser would have helped here?
Dan
Comment by Daniel Bridge posted on Filter, or not? at 02/03/2009 - 17:35
grrrrrrr. Why does formatting not work properly? It was fine when I created the post, but it now looks awful!
Dan