All Forum Comments
Comment by George Lazarette posted on K10D noise reduction at slow speeds at 29/06/2007 - 13:07
Quote:
The ones that exist:
FA31, FA77, A*135/1.8, A*300/4.0
The ones that doesn't (if I ever get a K10D):
DA12 Limited, DA15-70/2.8 SDM
-- MW
If you have an AF camera, the F* 300 1:4.5 is a better bet than the A*. It's arguably even better optically, and has the ability to track flying birds. And the tripod mount/handle is a joy to use.The ones that exist:
FA31, FA77, A*135/1.8, A*300/4.0
The ones that doesn't (if I ever get a K10D):
DA12 Limited, DA15-70/2.8 SDM
-- MW
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Most Wanted Lens Thread! at 07/07/2007 - 10:35
Quote:
When i said apprentiship i meant in a way of learning about photography and what a camera can achieve in the right hands. The DL2 did that for me and has now given me the confidence to move forward, and for me that is with the K10D. I'm sure everyone had to start somewhere and have moved on to use whatever camera they are now using. I'm no different, I've taken on board the advice thats been given and will put it to good use. I've just purchased a K10D with kit lens from Jessops for £499 a bargain i think. Will go nicely with my 80-320mm lens. Any tips will be most welcome.
Thanks
Richard
Fair enough. Good luck.When i said apprentiship i meant in a way of learning about photography and what a camera can achieve in the right hands. The DL2 did that for me and has now given me the confidence to move forward, and for me that is with the K10D. I'm sure everyone had to start somewhere and have moved on to use whatever camera they are now using. I'm no different, I've taken on board the advice thats been given and will put it to good use. I've just purchased a K10D with kit lens from Jessops for £499 a bargain i think. Will go nicely with my 80-320mm lens. Any tips will be most welcome.
Thanks
Richard
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Dilemma at 01/07/2007 - 21:57
Quote:
Don't get me wrong the DL2 is a fine camera i would not of bought it if i did'nt think so. It's just that it's served it's apprenticeship and it's time to move on.
Richard
What exactly do you mean? Cameras don't serve apprenticeships, and you need to explain (to yourself, at least) why you need to move on.Don't get me wrong the DL2 is a fine camera i would not of bought it if i did'nt think so. It's just that it's served it's apprenticeship and it's time to move on.
Richard
If there are some features that the K10D has, and that the DL2 lacks, and which are preventing you from taking the kind of pictures you want to take, then fine, upgrade.
But unless you can define these features, and are certain they will make a difference, then, as Mongoose said, you'd be better off spending the money on glass.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Dilemma at 30/06/2007 - 08:40
Quote:
Thanks for the advice
I think that the way things are moving forward then perhaps the K10D is the better option because by the sound of it Pentax have finaly got things right with this one. How does the K10D perform with the 18-55 would it give me a better peformance than on the DL2.
What third party lenses compare with the 16-45 (Tamron,Sigma).
What did they not get right in the DL2?Thanks for the advice
I think that the way things are moving forward then perhaps the K10D is the better option because by the sound of it Pentax have finaly got things right with this one. How does the K10D perform with the 18-55 would it give me a better peformance than on the DL2.
What third party lenses compare with the 16-45 (Tamron,Sigma).
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Dilemma at 29/06/2007 - 18:45
Quote:
Ok, there doesn't seem to have been much interest in this thread, .............
Don't be so hasty. Personally, I was withholding my comments until you had posted more results, and I'm still looking forward to seeing whatever else you want to share.Ok, there doesn't seem to have been much interest in this thread, .............
I'm no so interested in the CA, or even the sharpness (though both are important) but in the more subtle differences of colour fidelity, contrast, 3D effect, etc.. And for this, you need to shoot the same subject under precisely the same conditions.
The problem with animal pictures is that you can't usually persuade the beastie to keep posing for you while you change lenses. Flowers, however, are more obliging.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Pentax SMC-A 400mm F5.6 vs Sigma A 400mm F5.6 at 03/07/2007 - 13:48
Quote:
Apparently, it'll be a good while before anyone needs to make a decision on actually buying a 35mm macro, anyway. I'll have come up with a better reason to get one by then, I'm sure. Like doing macro photography, for example.
I once used a Photoshop trick on someone else's "brutally honest" portrait, where you made a fairly transparent blurred copy of the red channel and blended it on top using Luminosity mode. Lots of detail, but a sort of hazy glow (it's subtler than it sounds). Great for crows feet. Kind of thing I hope a good camera, excellent lenses and a bit of experience will render unnecessary.
Don't forget that the most important thing in photography is not the lens or the photographer, but the light. Harsh lighting will make even Helen of Troy look like Patricia Hewitt.Quote:
Macros do tend to be insanely sharp, see my thread from a month or two ago on hockey shots...
Amazing pictures. And I can see how Granny might object... Macros do tend to be insanely sharp, see my thread from a month or two ago on hockey shots...
Apparently, it'll be a good while before anyone needs to make a decision on actually buying a 35mm macro, anyway. I'll have come up with a better reason to get one by then, I'm sure. Like doing macro photography, for example.
I once used a Photoshop trick on someone else's "brutally honest" portrait, where you made a fairly transparent blurred copy of the red channel and blended it on top using Luminosity mode. Lots of detail, but a sort of hazy glow (it's subtler than it sounds). Great for crows feet. Kind of thing I hope a good camera, excellent lenses and a bit of experience will render unnecessary.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Crop factor confusion at 29/06/2007 - 08:09
[quote="alex_s"]
On a DSLR, 50mm should be considered a minimum for portraits. There isn't really an upper limit, though personally I would consider anything over 120mm to be impracticable because it places the subject so far away.
The 77mm is a superlative portrait lens because although it is as sharp as you could wish, it has a creamy quality that is flattering to the skin.
G
Quote:
I've been thinking about getting the weatherproof (always weatherproof, if possible...) 35mm macro when it eventually arrives, and hoping it would double as a portrait lens.
A portrait is normally a picture of the head, or head and shoulders. 35mm is much too wide because, if you fill the frame, the perspective (even on a DSLR) will give an unnatural and usually unflattering result.I've been thinking about getting the weatherproof (always weatherproof, if possible...) 35mm macro when it eventually arrives, and hoping it would double as a portrait lens.
On a DSLR, 50mm should be considered a minimum for portraits. There isn't really an upper limit, though personally I would consider anything over 120mm to be impracticable because it places the subject so far away.
The 77mm is a superlative portrait lens because although it is as sharp as you could wish, it has a creamy quality that is flattering to the skin.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Crop factor confusion at 29/06/2007 - 00:03
Quote:
Now if the pointing on the gable end can just hold out for another couple of years...
The 77mm is a superb portrait lens on digital. Quite superb.Quote:
I regularly used a 135mm lens on my Super A, I found it really good for more informal/candid shots of the kids as they were growing up.
That's splendid news, thanks very much. Just the kind of stuff my family are pestering me about. I think I'll probably give it a go, along with the weatherproof wide zoom.I regularly used a 135mm lens on my Super A, I found it really good for more informal/candid shots of the kids as they were growing up.
Now if the pointing on the gable end can just hold out for another couple of years...
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Crop factor confusion at 28/06/2007 - 20:44
Quote:
Oh, right. That is rather good.
But you do have to be a viable business, with the aim of making sales, otherwise everybody would register, and nobody would pay any VAT.Oh, right. That is rather good.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on I've made a sale but I have a question at 30/06/2007 - 13:47
Hi All
Has anyone any experience with using the camera's N/R at 1600 ISO? Do you know at what speed the N/R kicks in? Has anyone made any systematic tests to determine the optimum exposure level gives the best results?
My impression is that a fully exposed image may be relatively noise free even at 1600 ISO.
I feel that we may be overly pessimistic as to the usefulness of this setting.
Do you agree?
Ron McDermott
G