Peter,

If memory cards came in little plastic tubs with 'Velvia' written on the top, would that help?

Anyway, can we please have a vertical grip for the R2D2? Or K2D, or whatever it will be... That's a serious issue for me. I suppose it's too much to ask that the one for the D would fit it.

But the image stabilising has got me excited! I don't often feel like this about cameras, they're just things you use to get your pictures, but I have to admit I envied Minolta users (for a while, not any more ). IS would come in handy.

Exciting times for Pentax users (including you, Peter?).

Dan

Well, I'd say shooting JPEGs certainly saves Ken Rockwell some time - he must have had about a week to type that lot out!

Or was it mostly cutting and pasting? I gave up after about half way through because it was the same thing over and over and over...

Each to their own - just don't damn the evangelical, whilst being evangelical yourself.

Dan

I suspect the ones more prone to redeye were the ones who'd had the most to drink! Alcohol slows the reflexes, and that must surely also affect the speed at which the pupil reacts to the anti-redeye pre-flash, so you'd be more likely to get redeye with those that had had a tipple.

Just a guess, perhaps someone would like to conduct an experiment?

Dan

Brian,

It is frustrating trying to find lenses in stock - I was in Jessops on Wednesday, looking at the Sigma 10-20, and the guy said "I'll just pop downstairs, see if we've got one" and I was thinking, yeah right, save your legs. Oddly enough, they didn't, in fact they didn't have any PAF lenses.

But from a dealers point of view, I guess it's not worth keeping a stock of Pentax lenses for the odd times that people ask for them, because, like it or not, we're in the minority, and Nikon and Canon are the market leaders by far. It must be just as frustrating for Minolta, Contax and Sigma users. I don't think we can blame Pentax for it, nor the dealers, they don't want dead stock on their shelves, especially these days when lenses and cameras are updated every six months (well, by some manufacturers, at least).

But what we can have a go at dealers for is them saying they've got an item in stock, taking your money, then phoning you a week later to say "Actually, ...".

Several years ago, I ordered a Tamron 1.4x convertor from Jessops, who did tell me it wasn't in stock, but said "about a week, perhaps two". Six months later it turned up, by which time I'd gone off the idea. It's probably still on a shelf somewhere at the back of their warehouse. At least I hadn't paid for it in advance .

I hope you have some luck getting your lens. I was just about to say "have you tried Warehouse Express, they've got it listed", but when I just looked, they've changed it to just N & C.

Cheers,
Dan

Hi Mike,

I use a Heath Robinson set-up, but I find it quick and easy to use. My flash is a basic Centon FG30, which I use in manual mode (it has no TTL facility), and general, using this with Sigma and my 'special' diffuser, see below, an aperture of f/11 seems to give an accurate exposure.

The diffuser is a pedal-bin liner, cut up and restuck together using a soldering iron to weld the edges. It has a 6" x 5" flat panel at the front, and the sides taper down to the size of the flash head, where a rubber band holds it in place. The a quick blow inside inflates it to give an effective softbox. Ideally the sides would be silvered inside to reduce the amount of light lost through them, but then it does make it easier to balance the flash to the ambient light. I like the soft lighting produced, as being from above (or one side if used in portrait orientation), you also get some modeling, which you lose with ringflash. And it was dirt-cheap!

You do get some funny looks though...












istD, Sigma 105mm f/2.8 @f/11, extension tube ISO200 full frame

The beauty of digital is, as you say, that you are free to experiment!

All the best,
Dan

Peter, it sounds idyllic, can't imagine why you go go there!

I might be wrong, I frequently am when it comes to insect ID (unlike an ex work colleague, whose favourite phrase was "I was only wrong once, and that was when I thought I was wrong, but found out I was right after all". They're a migrant to Britain from the continent, and we've had a few of them turn up at the lake at Bedfords Park, near Romford, where I work for Essex Wildlife Trust. But I just haven't got down to the lake to see them. They'd already 'gone to roost' when I went on Saturday.

Never mind, got lots of other shots instead

Dan

Thanks Brian - good price. You having it delivered? I could go and pick it up for you if you want, not far for me really, and I have a friend who's moving to Edinburgh in a few weeks, she could bring it with her, unless I forgot to pass it on... No trouble, really

Hoped to have a look at one today, in Chelmsford, but no-one, sorry, neither of the shops had one. Did have a feel of the 10-20 Sigma though, and it felt nice

Peter, I'm not sure exactly what it is with Dragonflies and Damselflies, but I do know I was laying in the muck next to a lake on saturday, elbows in the water, waiting for one of the dozens flying about to stop in front of me. Did they? Do I have to answer that? Your background look great, probably one of the trickiest things to get sorted 'in the field', they just don't take it into account when they land, do they? Just realised too, that the species of which you've got a shot was exactly what I'd gone to the lake to find - Red Veined Darter, unless I'm wrong. Did you take this in the UK or Spain? Bit of a rarity over here.

And I'm not sure about the depth-of-field stuff I wrote yesterday, woke up this morning thinking about it. Will have to try tests, but think I'm wrong.

Graham, have fun with whatever you choose to get and use - creeping up on a dragonfly can be very rewarding, just make sure you have plenty of time and patience; they have a special 'In-Focus' sensor in their heads which makes them fly off just as you're about to shoot.

Dan

Image below, full frame with the Sigma 105mm, 1/125s at f/5.6, no flash, handheld, ISO 200. I really like this lens





McBrian, can I ask where you bought your 180mm from? I'm thinking of having one to replace my 80-200 2.8 - it's an old Tokina that I suspect isn't quite as sharp as a new Sigma would be. I'm figuring with a 105 and a 180, with 1.4x and 1.7x convertors, I'd have most eventualities covered. The 80-200 isn't great with extension tubes.

Dan

Hi Graham,

Since getting my 'D' a year or so ago, I've really caught the macro bug, first using a Pentax 50mm (f/1.7) with extension tubes, then getting a Sigma 105mm.

The 50mm was great, and I still use it occasionally, but I much prefer using the Sigma for insects - the greater working distance is useful, but more importantly, I feel, is that you're not constantly finding that with a particular extension tube on, you can't focus near/far enough away, and you have to either recompose, or change tubes. I found that a pain sometimes. With the Sigma, or any 1:1 macro lens, you can focus from infinity down to 'lifesize' with no bother.



50mm + extension tubes (all three?)

I've used a 24mm lens on extension tubes too, but only for fungi and stuff, as it gives a different perspective, including more of the background in the shot. You end up very close to your subject.



24mm + 10mm extension tube


I'm considering the Sigma 180mm, to add to my arsenal.

Incidentally (and I think I may be sticking my neck out here, should really just try it out before I say this ), I understand it that the depth of field is the same for a given magnification and aperture, regardless of focal length. So, if the image is reproduced on the sensor at lifesize, the depth of field should be the same whether you're using a 100mm or 50mm lens, but the angle of view would be different.

It sounds wrong, but if you think of using a 300mm lens to take a photo of a Robin on a branch, at f4, the background would be blurred. Taking a picture from the same position using a 50mm lens at f4 would render the background much more in focus, but the Robin would be magnified far less - it would be tiny in the frame. Moving closer until you had the same size image of the Robin, the background should be as blurred as when you used the 300mm (although you'd see more of the background, due to the different field of view, which might make it more identifiable).

So, if that's right , choose your lens based on what you want to photograph - insects would benefit from the greater working distances of the longer telephoto, general still life would be easy using a 50mm and extension tubes, or indeed a 50mm macro.

Anyone, please let me know if that's wrong

All the best,
Dan

Hi David,

I can't comment on the DS, but I use a D. From your question, it seems you can see the difference the polariser makes in the viewfinder, but can't see the effect shown on your images once viewed on screen. To be honest, I can't see that there's any way the camera can 'compensate' for the polariser, ie cancel its effects out, as the filter physically changes the light coming into the lens, it doesn't just alter the colour balance (like a warm-up for example).

I suspect what's happening is this: As the polariser is used, and the glare from, for example, foliage is removed, you, or your camera, is increasing the exposure, and thus over-exposing. Thus the leaves look a bit washed out, and give the impression that the polarised effect has been lost.

Try 'under-exposing' by half a stop. So if you're using green grass as your average tone, underexpose this slightly.

To really see what I mean by this, try it with water (a pond or lake, not the washing up bowl!). With plenty of light reflected off it, the exposure would be fairly short to get a midtone from it. Using the polariser (at the ideal angle to the water) would produce very dark water, and therefore this is well below midtone. If you're going by the exposure meter, this would then up the exposure, and produce a midtone, which would appear washed out and perhaps seemingly unpolarised. 'Underexposing' would reproduce the true view through the polariser.

I hope that makes sense, and might help. I've certainly used a polariser with the usual expected result, both on film and digital. In fact it's on my lens 90% of the time, as it's effective, even if very subtley, in most lights.

All the best,
Dan