I do actually think this image is straight. When there is water on a flat horizon it's easy to see if it's straight or not, but when there is a curving lake shore it can be very deceptive. I would look at the vertical elements in this image to judge whether or not it is level and to me it does just pass the test.

I'm not so sure about the exposure; it is a little dark but this does make it atmospheric.

Regards
David

It looks great - a very good result. I would have liked to see a bit more foreground interest, but that's nitpicking.

Regards
David

Hi Nigel, I agree with the posts above; if you have a lens that you feel is not quite 'tack sharp' on your camera, it's worth experimenting with the fine adjustment. I have a 55-300 lens which is very sharp, however when I first got it I was disappointed as on my K-x all the images looked very soft, even when comparing them with ones shot with a Sigma 70-300 on my son's K-m (the 70-300 is not a patch on the 55-300). I then decided to try the 55-300 on the K-m and hey-presto it was so sharp it was untrue!

This prompted me to adjust the AF on the K-x (done via a secret debug menu). Since I got the K-5, the 55-300 needs no AF adjustment on this camera and is a very reliable and sharp performer. On the other hand, I have a Sigma 50-500 which needs a +7 adjustment on the K-5. There's no harm that can be done with the AF adjustment so there's nothing to lose!

Best wishes
David

Best of luck with the exhibition Bill; after looking at your website and studying the images in some detail they definitely deserve a public airing. I like the way that you use long exposures on subjects that one would imagine wouldn't require this method. Your images are pretty distinctive and always catch my attention on the Gallery.

Best wishes
David

7 element converters usually offer better IQ than 4 or 5 element ones do. I wouldn't bother with autofocus if I were you - it is of little or no use for macro work. It is worth getting one with contacts so that automatic aperture control is maintained.

I have found that with my 7 element Teleplus, there is very little degredation in quality - however this is only true if it is used with a good quality prime lens such as the D-Xenon 100mm macro. I use mine with a Sigma 105mm macro and it works great.

As mentioned by Gartmore though, the 2 stops loss of light is a major limiting factor and I actually prefer to use extension tubes in most cicumstances. The other benefit of tubes is that you get absolutely nil loss of IQ and this is a major benefit if you are looking for high quality macro images.

On balance, if you can pick up a TC for around £30 or £40 with the contacts, it's worth having one IMHO. They are not that rare and you should find a good quality one on ebay for this amount. Mine was £30 and is absolutely mint in the box condition. as a bonus, if you have a quality Telephoto lens you can also use it to good effect with this, but you need very good light for it to be useable.

Regards
David

Not bad for 6 quid!

Regards
David

Some interesting thoughts so far, but I was referring to image quality rather than ease of use in this thread, so I would be really intersted to hear the views of everyone on IQ? Particularly interesting would be comparisons between old and new lenses of equivalent focal length, for example how does the M28mm F3.5 perform compared to 18-55 set at 28mm?

Regards
David

I agree to some extent Dave, but also the quality of the glass must play a massive role in how the images turn out? As for ease of use, the lens that took the photo above is an absolute joy to focus, even in very dim light and I fid that I can get results as accurate, or more accurate than AF by using manual focussing in the viewfinder with this lens.

I also find that although my M28mm F3.5 suffers from CA in some environments, the way it renders landscapes is quite magical.

Regards
David

I have just downloaded and installed the V1.14 firmware on my K-5 (absolutely painless process) and I would tend to support the views that Steve Coe published on this thread. My K-5 (mk1) is now locking accurately and quickly onto subjects in very dim light indeed in my living room with the 55-300 lens. This lens is not renowned for its ability to lock onto focus and although my tests are in no way scientific, I don't think it would have focussed in this light prior to the upgrade.

I suspect that Pentax have included some of the focus improvements found in the K-5 Mk11 into this firmware without advertising the fact. Why would they? If your mk1 can be improved by simply downloading and installing a file, why would you buy a newer model?

Regards
David

I want to generate a bit of discussion about older lenses and whether members think that they produce better images than modern lenses. Now, before everyone shoots me down, I am well aware that there are massive differences between good and bad old lenses, just as there are differences between good and not so good modern lenses. However, I find that I generally like the way that older lenses render images - usually more warmth and a more organic feel to pictures. I include, for your comment and as a starting point, an image shot a few days ago on my K-5 with the revered Pentax SMC K135 F2.5, a lens I have owned for only a short period of time, but one which I feel will get more than its fair share of use given what I think it is capable of. Your views please!




Regards
David