All Forum Comments
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Make my mind up time. at 08/08/2007 - 22:05
Quote:
Hi All.
In the next couple of weeks I will be in a postion to buy DSLR, I've had ME Super for a few months now, which I've really enjoyed useing , with 50mm 1.7, 40-80mm & Sigma 80-200, I also use a C----- G7, it's got to be a Pentax, but which one, I've only really been getting into photogaphy for about a year and the marco bug has bitten me, any advise would be great, I've read loads of posts on the site, and am now more confused.
Dave
Get a K100D now, and a K10D (or its successor) when you outgrow the former.Hi All.
In the next couple of weeks I will be in a postion to buy DSLR, I've had ME Super for a few months now, which I've really enjoyed useing , with 50mm 1.7, 40-80mm & Sigma 80-200, I also use a C----- G7, it's got to be a Pentax, but which one, I've only really been getting into photogaphy for about a year and the marco bug has bitten me, any advise would be great, I've read loads of posts on the site, and am now more confused.
Dave
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Make my mind up time. at 08/08/2007 - 21:20
Pentax designed the Limited lenses to be better than anything else. They are superbly constructed and are amongst the best lenses ever made. Really, only some Zeiss and Leitz lenses can be compared with them.
There are two varieties of Limited lenses. The original three were designed during the age of film, and more recently Pentax has brought out three more which are designed for Pentax digital cameras with an APS-C sized sensor.
Whilst the new ones are very good indeed, the older ones perhaps have a slight edge. In particular, the 77 and 31 are simply superb.
Pentax also make what they call star lenses (SMC Pentax-DA* 1:2.8 16-50mm, for example). These are designed for professional use, and are also of superb quality optically.
All Pentax prime lenses are well-made and usually optically excellent. The 50mm 1:1.4 is a very good example.
Zoom lenses are more of a mixed bag. The good ones are as good as any, and kit zooms are often better than competitors' equivalents (the 18-55, for example). But there are a few which would be more at home on a cheap Canon body.
Pentax has replaced its entire lens range in the past three years, and now has a good range of brand-new and excellent designs, except, presently, at the long end, where several new lenses have been announced but have not yet hit the market.
If you like primes, the Pentax range is superior in quality, if not perhaps in range, to those of Canon or Nikon. Certainly those two have nothing to rival the Limiteds.
All Pentax lenses have anti-shake (because it's built into the better bodies), and the first two of a new range of very high quality weather-proof lenses have appeared, complete with silent in-lens focus motors. Four more will appear over the next few months.
People use Pentax cameras partly because of the excellent ergonomics of the camera bodies, but more because of the quality of the lenses. It's hard to describe, but try to borrow a 77 Limited and you'll know what I mean.
Ergonomics and great lenses. That's the reason to buy Pentax. And, nobody can accuse you of following the herd!
G
There are two varieties of Limited lenses. The original three were designed during the age of film, and more recently Pentax has brought out three more which are designed for Pentax digital cameras with an APS-C sized sensor.
Whilst the new ones are very good indeed, the older ones perhaps have a slight edge. In particular, the 77 and 31 are simply superb.
Pentax also make what they call star lenses (SMC Pentax-DA* 1:2.8 16-50mm, for example). These are designed for professional use, and are also of superb quality optically.
All Pentax prime lenses are well-made and usually optically excellent. The 50mm 1:1.4 is a very good example.
Zoom lenses are more of a mixed bag. The good ones are as good as any, and kit zooms are often better than competitors' equivalents (the 18-55, for example). But there are a few which would be more at home on a cheap Canon body.
Pentax has replaced its entire lens range in the past three years, and now has a good range of brand-new and excellent designs, except, presently, at the long end, where several new lenses have been announced but have not yet hit the market.
If you like primes, the Pentax range is superior in quality, if not perhaps in range, to those of Canon or Nikon. Certainly those two have nothing to rival the Limiteds.
All Pentax lenses have anti-shake (because it's built into the better bodies), and the first two of a new range of very high quality weather-proof lenses have appeared, complete with silent in-lens focus motors. Four more will appear over the next few months.
People use Pentax cameras partly because of the excellent ergonomics of the camera bodies, but more because of the quality of the lenses. It's hard to describe, but try to borrow a 77 Limited and you'll know what I mean.
Ergonomics and great lenses. That's the reason to buy Pentax. And, nobody can accuse you of following the herd!
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Another hello (on the fence) at 10/08/2007 - 21:42
Quote:
Hi guys, I'm lurking a fair bit on the site and after a while it feels rude so a quick hello as I like the look of the forum. I'm not a Pentax user at present but seriously thinking about the K10D.
I liked the thread in which a post said that any of the systems are as capable as we are (which discussed weddings and Pete's concerns with noise - church photographers also used sound boxes in the past by the way Pete otherwise your choices are Leica, P&S as mentioned or a Nikon F6) , a sticky post of blinding wisdom if ever there was one.
Actually my first camera was a Pentax ME-F but that's a long time ago now. Capturing my daughter growing up pulled me into photography and in the past six years I grew a Nikon collection all based around my sole purpose: FM2N, F3HP, F90X, SB28, 28mmAI-S 2.8, 50mm AI-S 1.8, 105mmAI'd 2.5, 50mm AF-D 1.8 and 85mm AF-D 1.8 plus 300mm AI-S 4.5 and other accessories.
There's the dilemma. That post which keeps ringing in my ears rightly suggests I should buy a D80 or a D200 and yet I hesitate to for several reasons:
- digital shooting is not the same as film due to WB and ISO control
- the crop factor of DX affects all my existing lenses
- metering with a lens collection like mine starts at £800 unless I work with no metering and histogram only (i.e. D80 instead of D200)
- my Nikon flash has no TTL with the digital bodies
Therefore, what appears at first glance to be a compelling system to continue using is in fact the end of an era as there are compromises to sticking with it.
Emotional attachment is the only thing standing in the way of selling before it is worthless as it seems we start again with digital in reality whichever brand we choose.
I liked the K10D when I picked it up and have spent hours reading all the same info you guys will have read about it. It seems a steal at £400 or more to the point Nikon and Canon continue to give everyone a reach around with their pricing and design approaches. The compactness of the DA limited lenses is appealing for my needs and focal lengths. I like the Pentax Gallery I saw today at http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#, what struck me most were the images from the 77mm SMC 1.8 lens.
If a D200 were £600 or less I would probably be incentivised to stay put but the whole Pentax pricing structure suggests it's worth making the transition. I guess what has caught my attention the most is the fresh-thinking in the K10D features, the approach of Pentax designers to lenses and the design approach to light. This latter point seems to have caught out an awful lot of reviewers and users alike who have been unhappy with white balance, sharpness and film-like results compared with the opposition and it's pleasing to have read that it's down to delierate choice of the designer and needs to be understood.
I'm not looking for advice per se (although comments are welcome) as I realise it's about the glass and about disappearing behind the lens to use that over-trodden cliché.
I shall continue to read whilst I take a direction. I know my film processing days are gone though and I probably won't get that scanner I always thought I would. It's refreshing to see what Pentax are up to and just wanted to say hi.
Hello, and Hi,Hi guys, I'm lurking a fair bit on the site and after a while it feels rude so a quick hello as I like the look of the forum. I'm not a Pentax user at present but seriously thinking about the K10D.
I liked the thread in which a post said that any of the systems are as capable as we are (which discussed weddings and Pete's concerns with noise - church photographers also used sound boxes in the past by the way Pete otherwise your choices are Leica, P&S as mentioned or a Nikon F6) , a sticky post of blinding wisdom if ever there was one.
Actually my first camera was a Pentax ME-F but that's a long time ago now. Capturing my daughter growing up pulled me into photography and in the past six years I grew a Nikon collection all based around my sole purpose: FM2N, F3HP, F90X, SB28, 28mmAI-S 2.8, 50mm AI-S 1.8, 105mmAI'd 2.5, 50mm AF-D 1.8 and 85mm AF-D 1.8 plus 300mm AI-S 4.5 and other accessories.
There's the dilemma. That post which keeps ringing in my ears rightly suggests I should buy a D80 or a D200 and yet I hesitate to for several reasons:
- digital shooting is not the same as film due to WB and ISO control
- the crop factor of DX affects all my existing lenses
- metering with a lens collection like mine starts at £800 unless I work with no metering and histogram only (i.e. D80 instead of D200)
- my Nikon flash has no TTL with the digital bodies
Therefore, what appears at first glance to be a compelling system to continue using is in fact the end of an era as there are compromises to sticking with it.
Emotional attachment is the only thing standing in the way of selling before it is worthless as it seems we start again with digital in reality whichever brand we choose.
I liked the K10D when I picked it up and have spent hours reading all the same info you guys will have read about it. It seems a steal at £400 or more to the point Nikon and Canon continue to give everyone a reach around with their pricing and design approaches. The compactness of the DA limited lenses is appealing for my needs and focal lengths. I like the Pentax Gallery I saw today at http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#, what struck me most were the images from the 77mm SMC 1.8 lens.
If a D200 were £600 or less I would probably be incentivised to stay put but the whole Pentax pricing structure suggests it's worth making the transition. I guess what has caught my attention the most is the fresh-thinking in the K10D features, the approach of Pentax designers to lenses and the design approach to light. This latter point seems to have caught out an awful lot of reviewers and users alike who have been unhappy with white balance, sharpness and film-like results compared with the opposition and it's pleasing to have read that it's down to delierate choice of the designer and needs to be understood.
I'm not looking for advice per se (although comments are welcome) as I realise it's about the glass and about disappearing behind the lens to use that over-trodden cliché.
I shall continue to read whilst I take a direction. I know my film processing days are gone though and I probably won't get that scanner I always thought I would. It's refreshing to see what Pentax are up to and just wanted to say hi.
I'm a 77mm fan, too. It's full name is the SMC Pentax-FA 1:1.8 77mm Limited. Of course, it's not the only Limited lens. There are now six, and they are all lovely. Only Zeiss lenses come near in terms of optical and mechanical quality. And feel. Sheer tactile bliss.
I don't want to try and influence your choice in any way. Nikon and Canon both have some very good cameras (and lenses) in their respective ranges. They're more expensive, of course, and less capable, but still very good. Though perhaps not so well made.
You will be aware that the Pentax Limited lenses tend to work best on Pentax cameras, whilst the Nikon and Canon Limited lenses work best on, er, hang on, they don't HAVE Limited lenses.
But they're still excellent systems. If you don't mind not having the best glass.
See you around.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Another hello (on the fence) at 08/08/2007 - 21:42
It was seeing Brian moving in this direction that ignited the blue touch-paper of my "ICBM".
I think photography, as we used to know it, is doomed, unless people take a stand with their own, personal, non-commercial photos.
Commercial photography will of course follow the money, as Lilly predicts. But non-commercial photography might survive as a genuinely photographic medium if people want it to.
So what is a genuine photograph?
For me, it is an image that is conceived in the mind of the photographer, and realised using purely photographic tools.
Of course, the darkroom is now a computer, but purely photographic tools in the digital age are those which do what could be done in a traditional darkroom, but using modern (computerised) methods.
It's allowable, in my view, to reduce noise, because noise is simply sensor error. A better sensor would have low, or no, noise.
This is the essence of it. If imperfections in the system introduce things that you didn't see in the viewfinder, it is permissable to remove them. What is not permissable is to change or remove things you DID see.
Why is this important? Simply because if your final image is not what you saw, it is no longer a photograph. It's some bastard amalgam of photography and painting, or "imaging", or spray-painting, or air-brushing.
A great photograph is one which shows us what we saw (or would have seen had we been there), but didn't notice. The photographer, or artist in the medium of photography, saw something that the ordinary person might see, but wouldn't SEE, without the insight and imagination of the artist.
A few years ago there was an exhibition of Picasso's sculpture (the word is defined loosely) in London. One piece which struck me forcibly was an old pair of bicycle handlebars placed above a bicycle seat. It formed a bull's head, a symbol of Spain. Anybody else would have passed it by on the rubbish dump, but Picasso saw it, and created an iconic work of art from it.
It's this ability to see what others don't that defines the photographer, whose task is simply to record what he saw, as well as he can, but without embellishment.
That's my view, anyway.
G
I think photography, as we used to know it, is doomed, unless people take a stand with their own, personal, non-commercial photos.
Commercial photography will of course follow the money, as Lilly predicts. But non-commercial photography might survive as a genuinely photographic medium if people want it to.
So what is a genuine photograph?
For me, it is an image that is conceived in the mind of the photographer, and realised using purely photographic tools.
Of course, the darkroom is now a computer, but purely photographic tools in the digital age are those which do what could be done in a traditional darkroom, but using modern (computerised) methods.
It's allowable, in my view, to reduce noise, because noise is simply sensor error. A better sensor would have low, or no, noise.
This is the essence of it. If imperfections in the system introduce things that you didn't see in the viewfinder, it is permissable to remove them. What is not permissable is to change or remove things you DID see.
Why is this important? Simply because if your final image is not what you saw, it is no longer a photograph. It's some bastard amalgam of photography and painting, or "imaging", or spray-painting, or air-brushing.
A great photograph is one which shows us what we saw (or would have seen had we been there), but didn't notice. The photographer, or artist in the medium of photography, saw something that the ordinary person might see, but wouldn't SEE, without the insight and imagination of the artist.
A few years ago there was an exhibition of Picasso's sculpture (the word is defined loosely) in London. One piece which struck me forcibly was an old pair of bicycle handlebars placed above a bicycle seat. It formed a bull's head, a symbol of Spain. Anybody else would have passed it by on the rubbish dump, but Picasso saw it, and created an iconic work of art from it.
It's this ability to see what others don't that defines the photographer, whose task is simply to record what he saw, as well as he can, but without embellishment.
That's my view, anyway.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Not for the squeamish... at 08/08/2007 - 20:41
There are three problems with this site:
1 The writer is illiterate.
2 The design is hopeless, and hard to read.
3 The writer is a Ricehigh fan, and therefore either totally stupid, or it's Ricehigh himself pretending to be someone else.
Ricehigh, for those who don't know, is an obsessive nitwit from Hong Kong who has a grudge against Pentax because they don't respond to his endless rants.
Avoid at all costs.
G
1 The writer is illiterate.
2 The design is hopeless, and hard to read.
3 The writer is a Ricehigh fan, and therefore either totally stupid, or it's Ricehigh himself pretending to be someone else.
Ricehigh, for those who don't know, is an obsessive nitwit from Hong Kong who has a grudge against Pentax because they don't respond to his endless rants.
Avoid at all costs.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Flash Info website at 10/08/2007 - 13:10
Quote:
Here's how to make money..
I bet 5p that this thread is gone within the hour..
S'easy..
You lose.Here's how to make money..
I bet 5p that this thread is gone within the hour..
S'easy..
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Money related sites at 07/08/2007 - 20:27
Quote:
Get yourself a Googlemail account. Go to a cybercafe every now and then and email yourself all your images.
How long will it take to upload several gigabytes?Get yourself a Googlemail account. Go to a cybercafe every now and then and email yourself all your images.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Digital Photo Storage Device at 07/08/2007 - 20:26
One final point.
For years, many wedding photographers have used medium format cameras - popular choices being the Pentax 645, the Bronica 645 and various Mamiyas.
Perhaps you should listen to the noise those make before reaching any conclusions about what is an unacceptable level of noise.
Hint: they're not exactly silent.
G
For years, many wedding photographers have used medium format cameras - popular choices being the Pentax 645, the Bronica 645 and various Mamiyas.
Perhaps you should listen to the noise those make before reaching any conclusions about what is an unacceptable level of noise.
Hint: they're not exactly silent.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Second camera needed (Help required) at 08/08/2007 - 07:49
Quote:
How many have you got, George?
This is a limited offer, I'm afraid. If Pete sees sense, and realises he was stupid to sell the gun, I shall happily undo the transaction.George Lazarette wrote:
You are very welcome to have it back if you promise to behave sensibly.
You are very welcome to have it back if you promise to behave sensibly.
How many have you got, George?
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Second camera needed (Help required) at 07/08/2007 - 13:58
Thank you George, would get it with the kit lens & Sigma 70mm macro or if I can pick up a Pentax 100 mm macro at a good price.
Dave
You don't need AF with macro.
G