K10D, FA50mm f/1.4 @ f/2.4, ISO 100, 1/30s

Dan

Thanks Clarky, the cheque's in the post.

Not sure there's anyone with 'all the knowledge' of anything to be honest, and I've only learned what I have through trial and error. What I've ended up with is my 'style' of macro shots, not necessarily any different from a thousand other's, but it's how I take them.

Whilst I agree with much of what Clarky said, I would suggest that if you were going for a bit more of an abstract look for that flower, I would have gone a lot closer in order to simplify the image. I'm all for shallow depth of field, and often use my Sigma 105 at f/2.8, but it's not at its sharpest wide open, so softer, more abstract images are the result for me. I could post a couple of examples but I don't want to hijack your post.

I don't subscribe to the point of view that with macro you must have maximum depth of field. As far as I'm concerned, as long as the critical area is in focus that's good. Many of my insect shots are taken at f/4.5 - f/8 (unless I'm using flash, in which case it's usually f/11). If the eyes are sharp and the viewpoint's carefully chosen this is, for me, as much depth of field as I need.

Not sure about your cookie pic - I think the lighting needs to be a bit more directional, and perhaps warmer, to bring out the texture and colour more.

Making me hungry though.

I and I agree with Clarky when he says "keep them coming".

Dan

APS-H was (on APS film cameras) approx 30mm x 16mm, so a bit more 'widescreen' than the current APS-C sized sensor in the current Pentax DSLRs (24 x 16).

Dan

That's why I added a question mark and then a confused emoticon.

I don't know if it would make a difference, I should try it out and see. Logic tells me it really shouldn't, but a part of my tiny brain says perhaps it does... :

Dan

Interesting to note that also on Photozone, where the distortion of the 10-20 @ 10mm is measured at approx 0.6%, rising to around 3% in the corners (as shown in Karma's shot above), the 18-250 shows 4% barrel distortion at 18mm.

Chris, I'm guessing you have the Tamron, have you actually tried a similar shot? Bear in mind the camera is tilted upwards, which may make distortion more pronounced?

Dan

Just realised we might have been through Silverton when we went to the Silver Falls State Park some years ago.

Posting shots online and asking whether the lens looks any good is a bit hit and miss, because, unless the lens is awful, the shots will usually look fine. Reducing the size for display will (should) always increase the apparent sharpness, and it's hard to see whether there's any CA at this size too.

Dan

Um, think that's not quite right.

If the whole field of view is 4.6 degrees, and the moon travels 0.004 degrees every second, and the width of the sensor is 3872 pixels, then the pixels 'travelled' by the moon would be given by the ratios:

4.6/0.004 = 3872/p

4.6 = (3872*0.004)/p

p = (3872*0.004)/4.6

p = 3.4

So about 1/15s would give a quarter pixel blur, which Chris doubts you'd see.

But the best thing to do is try some out and let us know. This all depends on using a sturdy tripod, and the above calculations are for a 300mm lens, don't forget.

Dan

P.S. If that's wrong, please tell me!

Well, yes, but only because it's grossly overexposed. You can actually get a very similar pic to the proper HDR image by playing around with the 'standard' shot, just without such a dark sky.

One day I'll get around to playing with HDR software, but I don't think I'll bother trying the in camera ME HDR effect.

Dan

But the dynamic range can't be anymore than that of the sensor, which would be the same as just doing it in one exposure. I fully understand HDR when using seperate exposures on seperate frames, so you end up with several raw files which are then processed and tone mapped, but several exposures on one frame can't extend the dynamic range of the sensor, or the image, as far as I can see.

I'll be gladly proved wrong.

Dan

I can't see that it would be automating anything, other than combining the exposures.

Anyway, call me thick, but I can't see how making three exposures in camera is in anyway 'HDR'. I know it wasn't you aj that first mentioned it here, so I'm not digging at you.

Surely you are just exposing the frame for the sum of the three exposures? Exactly the same as if two 1/2s exposures are the same as one 1s exposure?

Let's use aj's example of three exposures, and let's say (using the 4 stops under, 1 stop under and 1 stop over example), that if the metered exposure was 1 second, we would have three seperate exposures at 1/15s, 1/2s and 2s. These would be combined in camera, but would give a cumulative exposure of 2.56s, which would be overexposed. So perhaps you work out the exposures and then divide them all by three. Which would give a total exposure of 0.85s. Which would be slightly darker than the metered 1s. :

How is this supposed to give an 'HDR' result?

Dan