All Forum Comments
So sad. Used to see plenty of these, and many other rare birds nowadays, visiting our garden as I was growing up. Nice pics - thanks for posting !
Comment by Frogfish posted on Surprise encounter with Turdidae in Wiltshire churchyard! at 16/05/2011 - 10:18
Excellent work DOIK.
Comment by Frogfish posted on Blown Highlights - OK or not? at 15/05/2011 - 10:56
Mike-P wrote:
Thanks Amin.
Now hurry up and rent that MP-E 65 so I can decide if I should blow a wedge of cash on a Canon.
An excellent set Mike ! Though I don't agree with Amin that they are PPG worthy - there are some insane macro shooters out there with absolutely amazing shots and the PPG should be reserved for the creme de la creme.Thanks Amin.
Now hurry up and rent that MP-E 65 so I can decide if I should blow a wedge of cash on a Canon.
I also have (had) an aching for the MPE-65 however I've started looking at alternatives to buying a Canon camera and that lense. Currently I've decided to go for either the Canon 20/23.5 or Canon 35/2.8 macrophoto lense. These lenses don't have any focusing helix. They are mounted on a bellows to achieve 2:1 to 6:1 magnification. The lenses come with standard RMS threads and can easily be mounted on a Pentax bellows with an RMS to Pentax K adapter. This information came courtesy of Abbazz on PF and here is the link he gave to a website on these lenses :
link
Here's a quote from that page :
Quote:
With the 20mm and a bellows, magnification reaches 10X. By adding extension tubes between bellows and lens, 20X magnification is attainable.
. I think this set up can be had for less than GBP100 - if you can find the lenses !With the 20mm and a bellows, magnification reaches 10X. By adding extension tubes between bellows and lens, 20X magnification is attainable.
Comment by Frogfish posted on Few Macro shots with the K-7 at 15/05/2011 - 05:53
Pentaxophile wrote:
I'd go with the Tamron unless weather sealing is an absolute must! The IQ of the Tamron more than gives the 16-50mm a run for its money and it's much cheaper and smaller. (It's shorter and only slightly wider than the 16-45mm for example).
OTOH the extra 1mm really makes a difference!
But you already have a fairly fast and pretty good lens in the 17-70mm. I'm not sure I'd be feeling a particularly strong urge to upgrade if I was you, especially if it means sacrificing the 50-70mm range...
Yep I agree with 90% of this post.I'd go with the Tamron unless weather sealing is an absolute must! The IQ of the Tamron more than gives the 16-50mm a run for its money and it's much cheaper and smaller. (It's shorter and only slightly wider than the 16-45mm for example).
OTOH the extra 1mm really makes a difference!
But you already have a fairly fast and pretty good lens in the 17-70mm. I'm not sure I'd be feeling a particularly strong urge to upgrade if I was you, especially if it means sacrificing the 50-70mm range...
The only think I don't like about the Tamron is the zoom ring which is anything but smooth. For value for money it literally can't be beaten in this range. However I would have bought the new Sigma version (the 17-50 not the 18-50) if they had had it in stock. Superb MTF figures and IQ and falls between the Pentax and Tamron price-wise.
Still, you have a K5 and if I was you I wouldn't bother buying a 17(16)-50 to replace your 17-70 since the K5 can easily handle those higher ISOs and you would be losing the very useful 50-70 range. Check using Photome to see with this lense what FLs you use most. If you are mostly up around 70mm then the Tamron 28-75/2.8 is a fantastic alternative (but I still wouldn't be bothered swapping) !
Comment by Frogfish posted on Help with choosing between DA*16-50/2.8 vs. Tamron 17-50/2.8 at 15/05/2011 - 05:18
MarkTaylor wrote:
Exactly the EV settings I use for 90% of my shots with the K5 - which has a tendency to over-expose in some common situations.xbow wrote:
I have to agree, I found my K10D underexposed - which was good. My K5 exposure seems spot-on so I get occasional blown highlights
I find myself increasingly using -2/3 to -1 stop of exposure compensation with the K-5 in many situations. Every camera has quirks you need to get used to and learn to compensate for when appropriate.I have to agree, I found my K10D underexposed - which was good. My K5 exposure seems spot-on so I get occasional blown highlights
Comment by Frogfish posted on Blown Highlights - OK or not? at 15/05/2011 - 05:00
gartmore wrote:
Thinking of one of Dr. Mhuni's comments on mediocrity, I have to concur. There has been a noticeable drop in standards of late and as a result I no longer submit work.
Couldn't agree more.Thinking of one of Dr. Mhuni's comments on mediocrity, I have to concur. There has been a noticeable drop in standards of late and as a result I no longer submit work.
I went on there to see what all the fuss was about, saw some wonderful shots and plenty of mediocre ones ..... so shrugged my shoulders and collected my hat on the way out as I just don't see the point.
Comment by Frogfish posted on PPG judges hate birds! at 14/05/2011 - 20:39
Or maybe (i'd also do a little PP on the OOF) :
[IMG]http://i51.tinypic.com/2hhk975.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i51.tinypic.com/2hhk975.jpg[/IMG]
Comment by Frogfish posted on Razorbill - cropped or not? at 14/05/2011 - 20:29
Does the shot work despite the blown highlights ? An emphatic Yes. Would it be better without blown highlights ? Another emphatic Yes.
Comment by Frogfish posted on Blown Highlights - OK or not? at 14/05/2011 - 20:24
thoughton wrote:
A very interesting set Frogfish! I used to play here is great, and I also like the shoe shot.
The verticals are slightly controversial, of course A matter of taste, but personally I think it's a fine line on when they should be corrected, and when it looks too fake. I think 'rubble' is a case where it looks a bit wrong, the corners of the buildings seem too acute to me. But in 'I used to play here' they look fine.
The amount of demolition and reconstruction in China is pretty astonishing however you look at it. I took this photo in Guangzhou a few weeks ago of a city block that's just been evacuated prior to demolition. Every building in this photo will be gone in a few months.
Thanks Tim ! That is an amazing shot - it's just incredible what is possible over here.A very interesting set Frogfish! I used to play here is great, and I also like the shoe shot.
The verticals are slightly controversial, of course A matter of taste, but personally I think it's a fine line on when they should be corrected, and when it looks too fake. I think 'rubble' is a case where it looks a bit wrong, the corners of the buildings seem too acute to me. But in 'I used to play here' they look fine.
The amount of demolition and reconstruction in China is pretty astonishing however you look at it. I took this photo in Guangzhou a few weeks ago of a city block that's just been evacuated prior to demolition. Every building in this photo will be gone in a few months.
Comment by Frogfish posted on Derelict Shanghai at 13/05/2011 - 20:18
Thanks for the kind words AG - glad you liked them. Not sure about the verticals - from memory those were the only two I put through PTLens though the problem I had is the towers lean one way and the house the other ! This can happen at opposite ends but not when both are in the centre so I figured it was just the perspective - no ? Cathedral - the lines go every which way ! Let me know next time you're coming over here , be good to meet up for coffee or shoot.
Thanks Mark !
It does a bit doesn't it Gareth.
Thanks Mark !
It does a bit doesn't it Gareth.
Comment by Frogfish posted on Derelict Shanghai at 12/05/2011 - 15:40
