All Forum Comments
Comment by davidstorm posted on Hi from Northampton at 30/05/2014 - 22:57
Welcome from me too!
Comment by davidstorm posted on Hi from Northamptonshire at 30/05/2014 - 22:56
We all have differing opinions John, for me the 55-300 is a non-starter for flowers, but I don't tend to take shots from a great distance away. I understand what you are saying, but I do think that most good flower shots are taken from fairly close to the subject.
Regards
David
Regards
David
Comment by davidstorm posted on Pixels or Glass? at 30/05/2014 - 22:42
I hope you don't think I'm being too critical Charlotte but I don't think that's one of your best. I prefer the 'fly' one you posted on the Gallery tonight, this one seems a bit dark?
Not sure what to make of Dr O's comment but I'm sure it's a private joke you will understand! It's great to see your photos again, please post some more!
Regards
David
Not sure what to make of Dr O's comment but I'm sure it's a private joke you will understand! It's great to see your photos again, please post some more!
Regards
David
Comment by davidstorm posted on Just a Ladybird at 30/05/2014 - 22:32
johnriley wrote:
My favourite lens for flower close ups is the 55-300mm. It enables frame filling close ups even when plants are at the back of large borders. The bokeh is beautiful and the crispness excellent at f/11 or f/16, ideal apertures for flower photography. It goes without saying that for this a tripod and a calm day are both essential.
I would suggest for you a K-5 II or IIs, the 55-300mm Pentax lens and save up any change for your next lens.
This would keep all your accessories and the handling the same as you have now and update your lens selection as well. Your tripod is already a very sound choice.
I strongly disagree with this John, there are many better lenses than the 55-300 for flower and insect photography. It simply does not get close enough and the bokeh is messy in comparison to many other lenses. A Sigma 105 macro or a Pentax 100 macro will both be much better for this type of image and both have better bokeh.My favourite lens for flower close ups is the 55-300mm. It enables frame filling close ups even when plants are at the back of large borders. The bokeh is beautiful and the crispness excellent at f/11 or f/16, ideal apertures for flower photography. It goes without saying that for this a tripod and a calm day are both essential.
I would suggest for you a K-5 II or IIs, the 55-300mm Pentax lens and save up any change for your next lens.
This would keep all your accessories and the handling the same as you have now and update your lens selection as well. Your tripod is already a very sound choice.
Regards
David
Comment by davidstorm posted on Pixels or Glass? at 30/05/2014 - 22:27
Your post poses a lot of questions Nigel with many different possible answers.
Firstly, if you are simply wanting more magnification and close-up shots, my first suggestion would be extension tubes and a quality 50mm lens, like the Pentax-A 50mm F1.7 for example, which took this image on the end of a full set of tubes:
Secondly, you won't be any better off with a K-3 than with a K-7, unless you have the glass to back it up. My first significant purchase if I were in your position would be to buy a Pentax 100mm F2.8 macro, either the WR or the non WR version (non WR has an aperture ring, the WR doesn't).
Once you have the glass and you've perfected your technique, the K-3 would be a good buy, as would a K-5IIs, both are superb for macro photography.
Hope this helps.
Regards
David
Firstly, if you are simply wanting more magnification and close-up shots, my first suggestion would be extension tubes and a quality 50mm lens, like the Pentax-A 50mm F1.7 for example, which took this image on the end of a full set of tubes:
Secondly, you won't be any better off with a K-3 than with a K-7, unless you have the glass to back it up. My first significant purchase if I were in your position would be to buy a Pentax 100mm F2.8 macro, either the WR or the non WR version (non WR has an aperture ring, the WR doesn't).
Once you have the glass and you've perfected your technique, the K-3 would be a good buy, as would a K-5IIs, both are superb for macro photography.
Hope this helps.
Regards
David
Comment by davidstorm posted on Pixels or Glass? at 30/05/2014 - 22:25
Great stuff Neil, looks like you have not got very rusty since your last posts!
I've got a week off work next week, so hoping for some better light, it's been miserable here lately. It looks as though the light was decent for these, it makes all the difference.
It's difficult to choose a favourite, but 1, 5 and 6 stand out for me.
Regards
David
I've got a week off work next week, so hoping for some better light, it's been miserable here lately. It looks as though the light was decent for these, it makes all the difference.
It's difficult to choose a favourite, but 1, 5 and 6 stand out for me.
Regards
David
Comment by davidstorm posted on Some Recent Macros at 30/05/2014 - 22:08
Mannesty wrote:
C'mon David, where's your sense of adventure?
It would be great if it worked, but you would be a braver man than me to try it! I wonder if anyone on here has ever accidentally or purposefully uploaded firmware intended for a different camera?C'mon David, where's your sense of adventure?
Regards
David
Comment by davidstorm posted on A question about auto extension tubes at 29/05/2014 - 21:51
Comment by davidstorm posted on Noticed anything unusual upgrading K-3 firmware? at 29/05/2014 - 21:49
Well done, both nice images, but the squirrel is by far the better of the two. There is something odd going on with the white balance though, especially on the squirrel shot. There's a very green tinge to the image. Hope you don't mind, I've tweaked it a bit on the WB, no other adjustments:
Regards
David
Regards
David
Comment by davidstorm posted on Morning in Queens Park at 29/05/2014 - 21:42
Regards
David