I like the way that the later Pentax DSLR's judge exposure, i.e. K-5 onwards. The K-3 is the best, but I routinely under-expose by 1/3 or 2/3 of a stop, especially when shooting landscapes. This is because I want to avoid any blown highlights at all costs, it's much better to bring up the shadow details than try to tone down blown highlights. I have seen reports by others of difficulty getting back shadow details on the K-3, but I haven't found this to be a problem, maybe because most of my shots are taken at 100 or 200 ISO.

Regards
David

As Matt says, there are lots of ways with Macro photography. A true macro lens is the easiest option, but I'm not sure if it produces the highest quality as John has said. I've experimented with all manner of different lenses and techniques and the highest quality results have been obtained by using a butchered FA 28-80 zoom lens (all glass removed, but aperture still working) and a Nikkor EL 50mm F2.8 enlarging lens reversed onto the front of the FA zoom. That's all getting a bit technical, but it produces results that are (a) a lot higher magnification) and (b) better quality than a macro lens can achieve.

Macro lenses also vary tremendously, the Pentax 100mm F2.8 variants are a good bet. Finally, the cheapest option, i.e. extension tubes and a 50mm prime can also produce stunning results and this would be my recommended starting point. If you find you like it and get on with macro photography, it's worth moving on to try some of the other techniques.

Don't forget also that good lighting is the most critical aspect of successful macro photography, this means you will need a diffused source of light, e.g. a flashgun with some sort of diffuser attached. My best results have been with a manual flashgun and a home-made softbox that fits over the flash head.

Regards
David

Thanks to you both, Alan and Stuey, for your comments.

Regards
David

It's an interesting debate, the K-5 has a little more latitude for bringing out shadow detail and is a little better at higher ISO's, but I still prefer to use my K-3 over the K-5IIs. The AF is more accurate (on my copies it is, I'm not claiming this is the case generally) and I like the way the sensor renders images. The K-3 also gives better cropping ability due to the increased resolution.

They are both fine cameras, I don't think most people would have too many complaints with either of them for general photography, of course this may be different for particular areas of specialisation such as the one highlighted by Mike in this thread.

Regards
David

I agree, great shutter speed to show the blur on the rotors.

Regards
David

We're on hols at the moment, in our touring caravan, on a small remote site in Buckton, near to Bempton Cliffs. Not surprisingly, the wildlife around here abounds, particularly birds, so yesterday we set off on a walk to get some shots. We went to the cliffs where we saw a lot of Puffins, but none close enough for a decent photo. Lots of Kittiwakes and Gannets too. However, I was more interested in the birds populating the surrounding grasslands and managed to get some lovely shots of Meadow Pipits. Also found a Kestrel's feeding post, so might get lucky later in the week with this. I can only upload one image due to diabolical mobile internet connection, so here's one of the Meadow Pipits. Shot with the K-3, DA*300 and 1.4 HD TC, with a Redsnapper Tripod, used as a monopod for this image.




I'm very impressed with the K-3 for this type of work, the AF is deadly accurate with the DA*300 and Teleconverter attached.

Comments welcomed, as always.

Regards
David

Just reading this thread for the first time, the questions being asked and responded to are ones often raised.

From my perspective, the choice would have to be a K-5II or K-5IIs. The Mk1 whilst it has a superb sensor simply has too many compromises in the AF department, whereas the K-5II and K-5IIs are bullet proof in this regard for everything except focus tracking.

The K-5's also have superb build, great weather sealing, all metal construction and many other nice features that I would not be prepared to compromise on. A K-3 would be even better, but the K-5's have image quality that is virtually on a par with the K-3, and better if you do a lot of high dynamic range shooting or high ISO shooting.

Regards
David

Hi Alistair

I would think the lenses you have will be OK, where you may have a weakness is in your camera bodies. Another K-5, or preferably a K-5II or a K-3 would be better than the K-5 / K-x combo, especially if there is a requirement to shoot in low light (as is the case at most weddings). The AF on the K-5 and earlier bodies really struggles in low light with any lens, but is much better from the K-5II onwards. With weddings it is critical that AF is nailed, especially on wider aperture shots.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'the tracking worries me' as most shots will be of fairly static subjects, unless you are referring to the Bride and Groom walking down the aisle, in which case you need to take control and make sure the pace is appropriate to what you are trying to shoot.

Regards flash, I think you should avoid using it if possible, if it is needed, make sure it is fill in flash only, turned down to an appropriate level, otherwise you risk destroying the atmosphere in the shots. A cheap manual flashgun that will do a sterling job can be bought from Amazon for £30 upwards, this is probably your best and safest bet if you really need it. I have a couple of Neewer TT560 Speedlights which are excellent, also Yongnuo get good reviews but are little more expensive. Buy yourself a softbox that fits over the flashgun, again these are cheap on Amazon and ebay. I would do a reconnaissance of the venue if at all possible, at the time of day you will be shooting the ceremony, to see what the lighting conditions are like and to establish if the flash can be avoided. It's better to up the ISO a bit if you need to; on the K-5 you could go to 1600 or even 3200 if necessary.

Finally do you have a 'second shooter'? If not, try to get one you can rely on. Two good photographers are far better than one, you will be able to organise things better and get better coverage on the resulting images. You'll also have someone to give moral support and 'bounce things off of' when necessary. The second shooter can also help with portable reflectors, diffusers etc. which are well worth having, especially if you're doing outside shots in bright sunlight.

Hope this helps.

Regards
David

Edit: Forgot to mention that I would stick with the AF lenses and avoid the MF ones, you won't have time to faff about with manual focus and it's a risk too. If you can get a better short zoom to replace the 18-55, this would be an advantage, something like a Siggy 17-70 or Tamron 17-50 which will give better IQ and better bokeh than the Pentax kit lens does.

Pentax 12-24 (or the Samsung equivalent which is essentially the same lens in a different suit of clothes) is superb, can't comment on any of the others as I haven't used them. My Samsung 12-24 is most definitely a keeper.

Regards
David

I had a 17-70, but sold it after purchasing AndrewA's Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4 HSM OS. Here are my thoughts after using both lenses extensively:

- The Pentax 17-70 is a fine lens but has focus issues with some camera bodies. By this I mean inconsistent focus, sometimes it's spot on, other times it is way out, this happened on my K-5 mk1, less so on the K-5IIs

- The Pentax is superior to the Sigma for colour and contrast rendition; the Siggy has a very strange way of rendering greens, which need adjustment in post processing to get them looking natural

- The Sigma is better in every other way, focus, sharpness (except between 60 and 70mm where the Pentax is better), bokeh, wider max aperture, better build quality

I haven't used the Tamron 17-50 but I would recommend the Sigma 17-70 (later version), with the caveat of the rendition of greens which is not a problem if you know how to deal with it in PP.

Regards
David