Striking indeed and different.

I like the dark exposures particularly.

Plastic Fantastic Cover, Willis and Lloyds stand out for me. I agree with Alan that the cranes don't quite fit in this set and I think too that the bottom third of that image is needlessly dark.

Quality shines through in this set though, there is nothing here that is anything less than highly competent and some real stunners amongst them.

Regards
David

I like these Roger, all nice and sharp and some good poses. I would say they are exposed a little too much for me and consequently don't have quite the depth of colour and richness that they could have done.

Interestingly, I find that my 150-500 has a tendency toward over-exposure so I usually dial in an extra third or two thirds of a stop under-exposure, compared to what I set on my other lenses.

Regards
David

I think it will also be very useful for butterfly and dragonfly pics, to fill the frame a bit more. I'm also going to try the 300 with a 2x TC with the glass removed, but with the aperture contacts, to see if this is more effective than using the Pentax 1.4 TC. The only downside to this will be manual focus.

Regards
David

I've just posted a comment. Didn't see the post earlier as I was abroad at the time and had very little time to visit the site. It does sort of bear out what we've been saying about cropping with a K-3.

Regards
David

Sorry Alan, never noticed this thread when you posted it. The crop is pretty impressive, not just for the camera but for the lens too. I don't think this would have been usable with a K-5, what do you think?

Regards
David

I'm a big fan of the 'single exposure' approach and almost all of the images I've ever posted either in the Gallery or on the Forum have been single exposures. There are the odd one or two exceptions when I've been trying to achieve a specific look. This one from the K-3 is a single exposure and I think it demonstrates that even in a dim church interior it's possible to get detail and highlights acceptable in one go, even with a camera as limited in DR as the K-3(!)




However, if this image were shot closer to the window, I'm sure it would look pretty blown out so I do agree that a '2 exposure' approach would deal with the situation better.

Regarding Andrew's efforts and HDR in general, my preference is for a 'natural look', which can be achieved with care, either by blending two or more layers, or in software such as Photomatix. Whether 'HDR processing' or blending layers is used is not relevant to me, what is relevant is how the final image looks.

Regards
David

Why do you ask Smeggy? My post was not aimed at comparing IQ between the K-3 and the K-5 variants, I was focussing on the way the cameras feel to use and also the cropping ability of the K-3, which I notice when taking pics of things like flowers and insects.

I don't print very often but I have a selection of images in frames on our walls. I don't sell my pics and when I do print it is A4 or A3.

Regards the K-3, I just find it a nice camera to use and find that the metering and colour rendition are better than the K-5IIs, the focussing seems to be about the same. K-5IIs is a great camera, I just like the K-3 a bit better, but I don't think it's leagues ahead in IQ.

Regards
David

I'm really not sure that is a suggestion that many of us would agree with. Those of us that use the Gallery (as you probably know that I do) like to leave comments. From time to time I do put constructive criticism on there, probably more so than most members but I'm always careful to try and ensure it is not too harsh, but it has to be meaningful.

The fact that comment is allowed should mean we are free to give our opinions, but most of us choose to do so in a more gentle way than we might on Forum posts and there's nothing wrong with this. The Gallery is valuable for many of us and especially so when we are just starting out.

I'm not surprised to see a lot of opinion on the Gallery by people who never or rarely view it, maybe this is because they don't like it, but if changes were made based on the opinions of those who don't use it then I doubt very much whether those changes would be well received. I started this thread off with some mild criticism of the quality of images on the Gallery of late, but whatever the quality it is good that we are free to post whatever we want (within reason) and to pass comment on it in a respectful manner.

Regards
David

One thing to bear in mind with the K-3 is its superior handling of metering, colour and white balance, compared to the K-5. I have found colours to be rendered better and more accurately on the K-3.

Also, if you are a P-TTL flashgun user, the K-3 is in another league. It works great with P-TTL flash, there's no element of 'hit and miss', unlike the K-5.

As Neil says, the cropping ability can be a bonus. Also I've found the K-3 very accurate with AF, although to be fair, the K-5IIs is also good and probably the equal of the K-3.

Regards
David

Interesting questions posed in this thread.

Rather than cloning out imperfections, my preferred approach is to avoid them in the first place, but this isn't always possible. Especially with macro work in uncontrolled conditions, i.e. outside on a breezy day (which it always seems to be in the UK). There's always a stray blade of grass, a coloured splodge in the OOF background or something else that tries to spoil things! I will occasionally remove some minor imperfections, but usually this extends only to dirt spots on the sensor.

Instead I'll move to a different position to try and avoid getting unwanted things in shot, but this can cause me to miss opportunities. If I do end up with images that have unwanted distractions, I'll usually not bother processing them. It's only when I think that I have an image that is exceptional, will I bother to spend time trying to get rid of an unwanted element.

With Senn's Dragonfly, I still think the shot is excellent, but if I had taken it I think I may have moved to one side a little to avoid the purple area being in line with the insect.

Regards
David