Just superb George, IMO these show what the K-3 and DA*300 as a combination are all about, when placed in the hands of an expert.

I don't think I've seen a better set on here.

Regards
David

I bought an early K-3 in November last year and so far (touch wood) not a single problem with it. Focussing is very accurate, fast enough for me and better than my K-5IIs. I also have to disagree with Daronl's observations on the 1.4 TC. It is by a mile the best TC I have owned and its effect on IQ is so negligible it is not worth worrying about. It works superbly with my DA*300, no negative effect on focussing. It's also great with the 100 macro. I will qualify what I've said by adding that I don't generally take photos of birds in flight.

Regards
David

I agree Matt. See the image below shot at a small festival last year with the K-5, also at ISO 1600.

Stafford Galli at T-Fest 2013:




Regards
David

I really don't get it, sorry John! To me it looks like a photo of coloured gravel turned upside down. I must be completely devoid of imagination!

Regards
David

I really like your second in the series Nigel, for me it is much, much better than the 'cliffs' shot because it has depth and interest all the way through. I must be in the minority here, but I thought the first shot looked very 'flat' with nothing to lead the eye. The second has everything the first doesn't.

Regarding the colours on the second one, I do think it is a bit over-saturated and something in between the first version of it and the de-saturated one above would be ideal for me. I would also have possibly included a little less of the rock and a little more of the beach, but that's nitpicking.

The details in the shot are lovely, that lens is certainly very sharp and doesn't exhibit any of the distortions that have been seen in some of the images you've posted with this lens.

Well done indeed!

Regards
David

I like both of these and I also like your dedication in getting them! The colours, light and sky are excellent.

My only observation is that you could have got closer to the stones and made them into a really strong foreground feature, maybe shooting from a very low angle. I know this may have meant not getting the whole circle in the shot, but I think it would have made for a more powerful and unusual composition.

Regards
David

Number 4 is the clear winner, none of the others come close. The reason is that the perspective is better and the image is so much more balanced compositionally. Why? Because you can see the top of the jetty and the details beyond it into the distance, including the mountains. You've already mentioned it above, but I think the polarising effect is a bit too strong, maybe the polariser without the grad or the grad without the polariser may have worked?

Regards
David

This is why it's good to debate and show our images; we all have different views. The reality is that skies can contain massive contrast and dynamic ranges that the camera cannot capture without some assistance, so I don't agree that the contrast between the shadows and lighter areas should necessarily be reduced. In some cases it pays to enhance this contrast. Like all other aspects of photography and art it is about doing what is appropriate for a particular image and no two images are the same, even ones taken in the same location at similar times.

I can understand that you see some skies in some images as unrealistic but by the same token I often see things in your images that don't look realistic either, for example some of the colours and also some odd angles as was discussed recently. This doesn't mean I am right and you are wrong or vice-versa, it's just opinions!

Regards
David

You clearly have a great eye for an image and that shines through in these pictures. The compositions and subjects are imaginative and well shot. There is one common theme I think you could look at to improve generally and that is the exposure. A good few of these are exposed on the high side and I think that slightly less exposure would make a difference. This may be due to the processing you have chosen and may be intentional, it's just something that struck me when looking at them.

Regards
David

I actually prefer the fourth one to the last Stan, to me it's a much more balanced and natural image. The last does need a little tilt to the right to level it out, but again all the ingredients are there and the sky in particular stands out.

Well done on posting a great series of varied shots.

Regards
David