All Forum Comments
K10D : I think we would have been more impressed if you had PS'd the Nikon into Pentax and D700 into K3 (and Nikkor lens into Zeiss 85/1.4)
Comment by Frogfish posted on Full Frame for the Insecure? at 02/10/2011 - 10:05
Nice clean shots, gorgeous starburst in #1. Subject matter is a little so-so (#1 is best and #2 is interesting). Shouldn't have chopped off any of the sign bottom left in #1 (though personally I'd have cropped it all out as the brick wall doesn't add anything). #4 needs straightening.
Comment by Frogfish posted on First attempt at twilight photography at 02/10/2011 - 05:44
I find that shot a little confusing, unless the owl was leaning forward, as the grass in front is in focus but so is the owl's eye (well done) !
Comment by Frogfish posted on Little Owl at 1200mm at 02/10/2011 - 05:39
Pentaxophile wrote:
Lemmy, that's not true at all. The difference in DOF and therefore the 'depth' of pictures is perfectly visible at web sizes. I appreciate this isn't the be-all and end-all of most people's photography, but if dreamy portraits and 'art' shots are your thing, it might be. And the big viewfinder thing can't be argued against. It's just better to have a big viewfinder.
And larger sensors do not mean more pixels - the D700 having a lot less than the APSC sized Canon 7D for example. And less than the K20D even!
I am quite happy to stick with APSC, and use 'ultrafast' lenses if I want that shallow depth of field, but I totally understand why people would choose full frame, and wouldn't want to insinuate they're just compensating for some other indaquacy - perhaps in the underpants region - as you seem to be implying!
Agree 100%. Lemmy, that's not true at all. The difference in DOF and therefore the 'depth' of pictures is perfectly visible at web sizes. I appreciate this isn't the be-all and end-all of most people's photography, but if dreamy portraits and 'art' shots are your thing, it might be. And the big viewfinder thing can't be argued against. It's just better to have a big viewfinder.
And larger sensors do not mean more pixels - the D700 having a lot less than the APSC sized Canon 7D for example. And less than the K20D even!
I am quite happy to stick with APSC, and use 'ultrafast' lenses if I want that shallow depth of field, but I totally understand why people would choose full frame, and wouldn't want to insinuate they're just compensating for some other indaquacy - perhaps in the underpants region - as you seem to be implying!
The DoF, AoV and general cleanliness of FF camera shots are extremely attractive features for much of the type of photography I personally prefer. And I agree completely that a FF is not for everyone specifically for that reason.
I'd be right there, queuing outside the shop overnight, though if Pentax were ever to release a FF. In the meantime I'll keep saving for when the D700 used prices drop.
A FF Pentax would be the perfect complement to the K5 & lenses (those that are FF) that I have (and I love the K5 so much that having sold my K7 I'll be adding another K5 next week as I can't shoot events with just one camera).
Comment by Frogfish posted on Full Frame for the Insecure? at 02/10/2011 - 04:54
Thanks for the bits n bobs i bought - fast delivery and well packaged (as viewed via Skype) : shame I can't actually get my hands on them until after Xmas (sent to my daughter as I'm in Shanghai) !
Comment by Frogfish posted on Pentax K-5, K-x, 43ltd, 77ltd, 135/2.5, tamron 17-50 2.8 and more! at 29/09/2011 - 08:06
Pentaxophile wrote:
Both nice lenses, and useful focal lengths in different ways. However there is nothing else like the 15mm in manual lens world, whereas many 20mm and 24mm options exist. So I went for the 15mm. You don't gain much compared to a zoom like the 16-45mm in IQ terms, with either lens. You have to really value the small size and beautiful build quality.
I don't really agree with that. The 15 Ltd IQ is simply superb, incredibly sharp (1:1 looks better than some lenses before cropping !) and incredible colour depth, just beautiful. I only use my Sigma 10-20 for work now.Both nice lenses, and useful focal lengths in different ways. However there is nothing else like the 15mm in manual lens world, whereas many 20mm and 24mm options exist. So I went for the 15mm. You don't gain much compared to a zoom like the 16-45mm in IQ terms, with either lens. You have to really value the small size and beautiful build quality.
I have just bought a pure landscape lens ..... a MF Contax Zeiss 28/2.8. It focuses to infinity from 3 metes/yds onwards, so basically everything is in focus all the time. You don't need AF and you want as little distortion as possible (the 10-20 / 15 Ltd and 21 Ltd all have more or less distortion at the edges - though I found the 15 Ltd considerably better in this regard than the 10-20 - and I haven't used the 21 Ltd so can't comment).
If your scene is wider than the lens then it's time to blend 2 or more shots into a panorama - lots of great software out there for that.
Comment by Frogfish posted on A landscape prime at 24/09/2011 - 13:31
aliengrove wrote:
That sounds a little daunting .... 4-5 stops !!! I don't see why MF lenses should be too much of an issue though, my Zeiss 28/2.8 finds infinity somewhere between 2 & 3m/yds and the 84/1.4 hits infinity somewhere around 20m/yds, so for landscapes they shouldn't be an issue (I would hope) !Frogfish wrote:
The first two don't do anything for me but the 3rd & 4th are just superb.
I much prefer the last two myself, I was very glad to get them on my first try at aerial photography in IR. I am still learning, and haven't really made it easier on myself using manual focus lenses, but hopefully will end up getting a higher percentage of keepers as I learn! Exposure is largely guesswork but the beauty of digital is you can see the histogram straight away and adjust it. The biggest surprise to me has been the different lengths of exposure needed depending on where the sun is relative to where the camera is pointing, a variation of up to 4 or 5 stops.The first two don't do anything for me but the 3rd & 4th are just superb.
Comment by Frogfish posted on Himalaya/Kunlun Mountains in IR at 23/09/2011 - 20:09
woodworm wrote:
That's really cool.
Does anyone have any suggestions for focus stacking software? I don't have Photoshop and don't plan on buying it anytime soon ...
Zerene Stacker is excellent (on a Mac).That's really cool.
Does anyone have any suggestions for focus stacking software? I don't have Photoshop and don't plan on buying it anytime soon ...
Comment by Frogfish posted on Macro shots at 23/09/2011 - 19:55
Brilliant shot - I love it. Great stone too.
Why would you only put your article up for Plus members ? Is anyone paying for it ? And if not I can't see why you would do that and deny the proletariate (not that I have any imminent plans for IR but I just found that comment a little strange. Fine if people are willing to pay you for your efforts though).
Why would you only put your article up for Plus members ? Is anyone paying for it ? And if not I can't see why you would do that and deny the proletariate (not that I have any imminent plans for IR but I just found that comment a little strange. Fine if people are willing to pay you for your efforts though).
Comment by Frogfish posted on This land was ravaged by... IR version at 23/09/2011 - 10:46
