Makes me think of the scene in Bladerunner when they view the photo and zoom in, then look round the corner to see the dress on the bed(? could be wrong with the detail).

It's a nice idea, but yes, it does run slowly at the moment - surely the start of something a lot better though.

Dan

Had a trip out today, and stopped off at a camera shop (that will remain nameless for the sake of the advisor I spoke to ).

Chatting about brands, the advisor asked what camera I used, and I said the K10D. He said he's got a load of pentax fit lenses, but hadn't decided to go digital with Pentax yet, waiting "until the full frame body came out". I said something along the lines of "plenty of rumours" and he replied "oh no, they're definitely bringing one out, it's either going to be at Photokina or announced there".

Now I know plenty of things are announced, and never realised, but...

He then said that they're basically being forced into doing it, what with Olympus going full frame too now.

He was surprised that nothing had been confirmed on the net (here) as dealers have known for some time. I then asked "Should you be telling me this?" and his reply was something like "Er, probably not..." with a face like this:

We got onto lenses, and mentioned that the main gripe people had about the pentax system was lack of lenses, but then said "they do 10mm to 300mm, it's just the extremes like 600mm f/2.8 that's missing", to which he replied "not for long...". Apparently we are to expect a lot of new lenses.

Obviously he could have just been pulling my leg, but he seemed quite sincere and up front.

Now, I was in two minds about posting this, because:

a) It's pure conjecture and rumour
b) It could well kick off the whole full frame debate again.

But I thought as that was what I'd heard, I'd pass it on to you lot. It seems incomprehensible to have new APS-C sized lenses out for a year or less before needing new full frame ones, but if market forces are pushing them that way, and they have the financial backing to produce them, then perhaps that's the way they have to go. There's obviously no reason not to keep producing the smaller sensored models, keeping the owners of the D lenses happy.

So there you go, take it with a pinch of salt.

Dan

I'm just about to start a thread in the Digital SLR section, because I had an interesting chat to a sales advisor in a camera shop today. Full frame, new lenses, etc. Seems someone's is investing a lot of money in Pentax, and I assume that's Hoya.

If it's true, you can expect to see a lot of new lenses popping up on the roadmap. So at least one of the gripes of most non-pentax users, and some pentax users too, would be knocked on the head.

Dan

I remember the days when my name would have been there... Perhaps I should post more pictures!

I would say one of the main things to think about with macro is composition. It's all well and good getting as close to something as possible, but if that's all your photo is, it will soon be just another photo of a flower or moth or whatever. There are record shots, and there are good, interesting photos.

Depth of field should not necessarily be viewed with the idea of 'getting as much as possible', but just 'getting enough'. I often use f/5.6 or wider, and it depends on the type of look I'm after. I often use flash, particularly when shooting insects, but will tend to favour natural light and a tripod for flowers etc.

I've just posted a couple of shots in the Gallery. The spider was at f/4.5, 1/90s, ISO200, handheld with my Sigma 105mm. The dragonfly was f/5.6, 1/250s, ISO200, again handheld. There are a couple of flower shots there too now.

As far as flash is concerned, I'd definitely advise that you diffuse your flash somehow (I use a lumiquest one like this, on a cheap, manual flash). Personally I'm not too keen on the look that a ring flash gives.

You may find you benefit from attending a good value one day macro workshop. You might find one by clicking on a link to someone's website in their signature, and following the link to the 'workshops' page. Depends where you are as to whether that's any use, of course.

Dan

You could also try using a flash with a strobe feature (the 500 ?), which if used in a darkened room would yield several images on one frame.

Dan

Have you got a bean bag Peter? Should be much easier to get a big lens like your 135-600 steady with that, rather than a tripod.

Dan

P.S. Glad the 1.7xAF is showing its worth!

Where's the 'Blows a raspberry' smiley?

Dan

Remember the U.K. Peter? Remember them big, fluffy white (or usually grey) things called clouds we get over here?

That's my guess anyway.

Dan

You say that now, but wait til you've actually tried a macro lens. No more swapping tubes about, just focus from infinity all the way down to lifesize. Then, you pop the tubes on the macro lens...

Tubes are a great way to get into macro, and have their place for getting unusual perspectives (one short tube on my 16-45 gives really weird shots when the lens is set to 16mm. Granted the subject's actually touching the front element when it's in focus, but it's still a cool view), but if you find you're seriously getting into macro, you can't go wrong with a 'proper' macro lens.

Dan

Same thing puzzles me Amoringello. And your reasoning is the same as mine. So, if anyone can elucidate, it would be most appreciated.

Dan