All Forum Comments
Comment by Don posted on don't know how to explain at 08/04/2011 - 01:35
melvis wrote:
Well I'd like to blame the choice of the 70mm ltd lens on my highly developed sense of all things photography but...... All I knew when I purchased it was that it got good reviews on amazon. I guess this brings me to the next question. Does the kit lens have any resale value?
not really (most kit lenses get a bad wrap, the pentax, not deservedly so), which is surprising, as it is a good performer... try it for a while, you may like it...Well I'd like to blame the choice of the 70mm ltd lens on my highly developed sense of all things photography but...... All I knew when I purchased it was that it got good reviews on amazon. I guess this brings me to the next question. Does the kit lens have any resale value?
shooting with a d-slr takes a little patience and has a learning curve, but the results are worth it.
Comment by Don posted on don't know how to explain at 08/04/2011 - 01:29
anywho... indoors, zoom lens.... you need to go with a higher iso to get good shots..... even with your 70 ltd you may find your indoor/poor light shots come out with too shallow a depth of field.... and may look soft or out of focus... you still need to up the iso...
you picked a good camera and should not hesitate to shoot at iso 800 or 1600.....
you picked a good camera and should not hesitate to shoot at iso 800 or 1600.....
Comment by Don posted on don't know how to explain at 08/04/2011 - 01:19
I don't know about grainy, unless you got it really dirty while changing lenses , but your viewfinder will be darker due to the widest aperture being smaller on the zoom than the 70.... therefor harder to see though.
The bigger the number (ie f3.5 for the zoom vs 2.4 for the 70) the less light will pass through at wide open aperture.... by the time you zoom out to 55 mm you are at f 5.6, much less light than the 70 2.4
that my friend is why we have invented LBA
(lens buying affliction) you got spoiled right off the hop by the 70 ltd!
Now you will be cursed when trying to find better lenses!
May we interest you in the 16-50 2.8 as a remedy for your "This kit lens is too dark" malady?
The bigger the number (ie f3.5 for the zoom vs 2.4 for the 70) the less light will pass through at wide open aperture.... by the time you zoom out to 55 mm you are at f 5.6, much less light than the 70 2.4
that my friend is why we have invented LBA
(lens buying affliction) you got spoiled right off the hop by the 70 ltd!
Now you will be cursed when trying to find better lenses!
May we interest you in the 16-50 2.8 as a remedy for your "This kit lens is too dark" malady?
Comment by Don posted on don't know how to explain at 08/04/2011 - 01:10
I'm guessing the reflection off the shiny tin caused your flash to under expose, and your exposure at f 5.6 and 1/100 sec was too low for the ambient light....
I suspect the reason you got better shots off your prime was simply due to it's wider aperture...
try setting your iso to 400 or even 800 and reshoot, I bet it will be better...
then try shooting at iso 400 and +1 flash exp comp...
or try shooting something that isn't so shiny/reflective....
another thing you can try is to use a slower shutter speed, like 1/30 second... or even slower...
I suspect the reason you got better shots off your prime was simply due to it's wider aperture...
try setting your iso to 400 or even 800 and reshoot, I bet it will be better...
then try shooting at iso 400 and +1 flash exp comp...
or try shooting something that isn't so shiny/reflective....
another thing you can try is to use a slower shutter speed, like 1/30 second... or even slower...
Comment by Don posted on don't know how to explain at 08/04/2011 - 01:01
suggest you shoot it with the 10-17 fisheye.
Comment by Don posted on Solution plesae at 07/04/2011 - 23:26
Algernon wrote:
The OP said he was a noob and a Bigma was out of the question so he asked if he could use a TC with the 55-300mm..... simple enough I use a Pentax 1.4x-s with the same lens so as far as I'm concerned it's a working partnership I even posted a couple of photos, but others claimed you couldn't use a zoom with a TC and the Canon test clearly shows you can with actual pictures and not MTF tests. Pentax would have been better, but they don't make any, so no body will have any to test.
Photographers especially amateur are well used to using what's available so to say A + B won't work is a no-no. There's even been a link on this site to a Professional Fashion Photographer using a Mobile Phone on a shoot for publication. I don't remember anyone saying you can't do that.... you need at least a 645. It wasn't long ago that they were saying you can't use 35mm it needs to be 1/4 Plate
lol!johnriley wrote:
But what relevance does a test of Canon lenses and Tcs have to Pentax Users?
The thread seems to have drifted John. But what relevance does a test of Canon lenses and Tcs have to Pentax Users?
The OP said he was a noob and a Bigma was out of the question so he asked if he could use a TC with the 55-300mm..... simple enough I use a Pentax 1.4x-s with the same lens so as far as I'm concerned it's a working partnership I even posted a couple of photos, but others claimed you couldn't use a zoom with a TC and the Canon test clearly shows you can with actual pictures and not MTF tests. Pentax would have been better, but they don't make any, so no body will have any to test.
Photographers especially amateur are well used to using what's available so to say A + B won't work is a no-no. There's even been a link on this site to a Professional Fashion Photographer using a Mobile Phone on a shoot for publication. I don't remember anyone saying you can't do that.... you need at least a 645. It wasn't long ago that they were saying you can't use 35mm it needs to be 1/4 Plate
true story...
I'm standing at the magazine rack at superstore, the other week, checking out popphotos article on the kr...
and the guy standing besides me says "I wouldn't buy that camera, real pros use Nikons"
"Really" i asked.. "Are you a pro?"
"Well I've done a few weddings, and I have won some camera club competitions... So I'm getting there"
"So Pentax is not good for pro's?" i ask.
"No, they got no lenses, and lousy image quality"..
So I walk over to other sections of the magazine rack and pull off three different publications, and hand the guy a cover shot, an ad on the back of another magazine and an inside shot of another ad in another magazine... All the shots were credited to "Light Expressions Multimedia".
I hand him my business card and whispered "Don't tell anybody I shot all those with a Pentax, ok?"
Blythman wrote:
Whilst I know some will prefer the twin dials and menus but in terms of capabilities (AF, metering, image quality), other than WR is the K5 a big step up from the K-r?
a kr with aa adaptor is a fine compliment to the k5.Whilst I know some will prefer the twin dials and menus but in terms of capabilities (AF, metering, image quality), other than WR is the K5 a big step up from the K-r?
in terms of final image/video quality.... I'd say no, they are both excellent....
the devil is in the details...
as you said weather sealing, build quality and a few ergonomic things.. but at the end of the day, the k5 has about a stop more high iso and goes places the kr needs a raincoat...
I factored in batteries and video abilities before deciding the k5 WOULD be a fine upgrade to my k10, but since I have TWO k10's (and no desire to replace both of them), and I didn't want every camera I owned to have seperate batteries and chargers, so I compromised and bought the kr with AA adaptor. I now get high iso and video quality, and weather sealing, just not from the same camera!
Comment by Don posted on The Future of K5 Prices at 07/04/2011 - 18:00
"Honey... tell Joey to go sleep over at his friends house tonite and come see what I bought!"
Comment by Don posted on Caption competition at 06/04/2011 - 14:30
Pentaxophile wrote:
Go to Imaging Resource and check their maximum recomended print sizes for each camera, and the iso samples. Forget silly comparisons like that one! God knows what they based '10 percent better image quality' on. For me the k-7 wins except at base iso where the differences are negligible at a 1:1 view - and that's a smaller portion of the frame for the higher resolution K7. It's hardly a quantum leap though! The Kr is a lot better at high iso than either and is the one to go for if you want to push exposures in PP or shoot high iso.
agree... my point was the kr adds to my options without breaking the bank...the image quality is close enough on the k10's that the decision to upgrade to the k5 boils down to cost and ergonomics... if I didn't have two k10's I might view the weather sealing and low light abilities of the k5 to be worth the extra money....Go to Imaging Resource and check their maximum recomended print sizes for each camera, and the iso samples. Forget silly comparisons like that one! God knows what they based '10 percent better image quality' on. For me the k-7 wins except at base iso where the differences are negligible at a 1:1 view - and that's a smaller portion of the frame for the higher resolution K7. It's hardly a quantum leap though! The Kr is a lot better at high iso than either and is the one to go for if you want to push exposures in PP or shoot high iso.
the k5 is a solid upgrade from the k10.... but the image quality is still close enough that the photographer matters more than the camera, more often than not.
Comment by Don posted on K10 beats K7, at least on some points.. at 06/04/2011 - 01:38
then you have a set of fast primes for low light and the kit zoom for outdoors, I'm assuming you have the wr 18-55 version? If so you may want to save it for a rainy day. I mean really, take it out in the rain!