All Forum Comments
Comment by Horst posted on Using UV Filters at 16/12/2013 - 12:32
You can not compare tubes with tele converters.
Tubes do not degrade the image at all, because no extra glass is involved. With tubes you can easy get 1:1 or even 0.1:1 but you loose a fair amount of light.
You then have problems with hand held shots. Also normally the 50mm F1.4's and 1.2's are not ideal for macro shots.
However a 50mm f2.8 macro lens reverse mounted will really give you very good close ups.
The drawback with tubes and mounting the lens reverse is, you loose the Infinity ability.
A tele converter does still let you focus to infinity, with most of them
you loose 2 f-stops and they degrade the IQ.
I would say, the ideal for flowers and insect macros is the Pentax 100mm f2.8 macro. Save up for it and you wont regret it.
With extension rings, your viewfinder gets quite a lot darker too.
Regards, Horst
Tubes do not degrade the image at all, because no extra glass is involved. With tubes you can easy get 1:1 or even 0.1:1 but you loose a fair amount of light.
You then have problems with hand held shots. Also normally the 50mm F1.4's and 1.2's are not ideal for macro shots.
However a 50mm f2.8 macro lens reverse mounted will really give you very good close ups.
The drawback with tubes and mounting the lens reverse is, you loose the Infinity ability.
A tele converter does still let you focus to infinity, with most of them
you loose 2 f-stops and they degrade the IQ.
I would say, the ideal for flowers and insect macros is the Pentax 100mm f2.8 macro. Save up for it and you wont regret it.
With extension rings, your viewfinder gets quite a lot darker too.
Regards, Horst
Comment by Horst posted on Macro on a budget? at 13/12/2013 - 12:50
I had exactly the same problems with my extension tubes. They also had the anodizing on the bottom ring. I fitted them in to my lathe and very gently cut the anodizing off. Now everything works fine.
I just don't know how the manufacturers can be so stupid and anodize the bottom ring.
Regards, Horst
I just don't know how the manufacturers can be so stupid and anodize the bottom ring.
Regards, Horst
Comment by Horst posted on Problem with this item teleconverter at 13/12/2013 - 12:35
Yes, especially on this forum too.
Regards, Horst
Regards, Horst
Comment by Horst posted on Lens Prices in the UK at 06/12/2013 - 01:05
When looking in Ebay for prices on the current range of Pentax SLR lenses, I found them to be on average nearly twice the cost of the Australian prices.
Compare this 2: 221278567314 and 231099192409.
This also applies to some just out of production lenses.
e.g. 231092624840
I bought a new lens like this one year ago in Australia for around 450 Dollars
The Hong Kong prices are somewhere in between.
Somebody must make big bucks on Lenses in England.
Regards, Horst
Compare this 2: 221278567314 and 231099192409.
This also applies to some just out of production lenses.
e.g. 231092624840
I bought a new lens like this one year ago in Australia for around 450 Dollars
The Hong Kong prices are somewhere in between.
Somebody must make big bucks on Lenses in England.
Regards, Horst
Comment by Horst posted on Lens Prices in the UK at 04/12/2013 - 21:54
Johnha wrote:
For Example, a 300mm Tele lens will show as much detail in its APS-C section taken with a full frame camera. Always assuming the Amount of pixels has increased to the same extend as the size of the sensor.
This brings me to the second point: The Pixel size does not need to get smaller with the size it is, when an inctrease from the existing APS-C is required to create a FF size. EG 16Mp to 34Mp. The size of each pixel will not vary. Therefore the noise level should be the same..
Johnha wrote further:
Regards, Horst
Quote:
Things are different these days. Yes old 'designed for film' lenses would get their 'true' focal lengths back - great for wide-angles, not great for tele's.
The first part of your comment is correct. The second part is not.Things are different these days. Yes old 'designed for film' lenses would get their 'true' focal lengths back - great for wide-angles, not great for tele's.
For Example, a 300mm Tele lens will show as much detail in its APS-C section taken with a full frame camera. Always assuming the Amount of pixels has increased to the same extend as the size of the sensor.
This brings me to the second point: The Pixel size does not need to get smaller with the size it is, when an inctrease from the existing APS-C is required to create a FF size. EG 16Mp to 34Mp. The size of each pixel will not vary. Therefore the noise level should be the same..
Johnha wrote further:
Quote:
For photographers with a slew of old lenses, FF makes sense. Taking it to the extreme, the Leica M8 wasn't FF, the M9 was and sold in droves even at £5k because it was cheaper than the 'FF' equivalent Leica wide-angle lenses otherwise needed for the M8.
It is quite correct. The cost of wide-angles (not real wide-angles, but Inverted teles) seems to be a lot higher when the same angle is required on APS-C then it is with FF. Where the cost of a Tele stays the same. ( See my comments at the start).For photographers with a slew of old lenses, FF makes sense. Taking it to the extreme, the Leica M8 wasn't FF, the M9 was and sold in droves even at £5k because it was cheaper than the 'FF' equivalent Leica wide-angle lenses otherwise needed for the M8.
Regards, Horst
Comment by Horst posted on Do we need full frame and to much resolution at 03/12/2013 - 23:06
Richandfleur wrote:
My sentiments exactly. Seems I have someone like minded . I would love to have my 24mm lens do what a 24mm lens should.
Regards, Horst
Quote:
Personally I like the idea of lenses 'going back' to what they were in film days. Namely that will allow me to get some wide angles going again on a budget. I've said it before, but I think over time that the full frame sensor will lose the stigma it's got at the moment of being unobtainable. They'll get cheaper and I'd be surprised if Pentax didn't release something full frame fairly soon, given we are seeing more of them in smaller packages now.
.Personally I like the idea of lenses 'going back' to what they were in film days. Namely that will allow me to get some wide angles going again on a budget. I've said it before, but I think over time that the full frame sensor will lose the stigma it's got at the moment of being unobtainable. They'll get cheaper and I'd be surprised if Pentax didn't release something full frame fairly soon, given we are seeing more of them in smaller packages now.
My sentiments exactly. Seems I have someone like minded . I would love to have my 24mm lens do what a 24mm lens should.
Regards, Horst
Comment by Horst posted on Do we need full frame and to much resolution at 03/12/2013 - 13:19
As I can see it, both lenses still have the purple fringing.
So you need to get rid of it with software on both lenses.
Finally, the results will be identical.
Regards, Horst
So you need to get rid of it with software on both lenses.
Finally, the results will be identical.
Regards, Horst
Comment by Horst posted on HD coating does make a difference... at 01/12/2013 - 11:09
DanielH wrote.
Not getting to personal.
Algie's credibility does not plummet. Because in a proper discussion
credibility does not plummet, just because the other party tries honestly to prove a point.
Regards, Horst
Quote:
My old teacher always used to say that empty ships make the most noise...................yawn I wonder how long you (Algi)will keep this up?? ten pages? your credibility plummeting all the time?
This is not the way to discuss things. Algi tries to prove his point and others try to disprove it. This should be a technical discussion.My old teacher always used to say that empty ships make the most noise...................yawn I wonder how long you (Algi)will keep this up?? ten pages? your credibility plummeting all the time?
Not getting to personal.
Algie's credibility does not plummet. Because in a proper discussion
credibility does not plummet, just because the other party tries honestly to prove a point.
Regards, Horst
Comment by Horst posted on Something to ponder! at 28/11/2013 - 22:12
TonyM Wrote:
I'll come back to a different topic in this forum.
Suddenly the idea of higher pixel count is very desirable.
Not long ago, when I barracked for FF with 34Mp sensors, There was a big outcry: "Why would you want more pixels?, The only and best pixel count is 16Mp on Pentax Aps-C, larger pixel count is to noisy, to large , have to buy new tele lenses" Forgetting The ability to crop and arrive at the same resolution, forgetting you have to buy new WA lenses, because you can not add to it. "Why would I ever need anything to what I have now".
And so on, in a negative fashion. The comment: You can always buy a wider angle lens, is not quite as simple. Because all other things being equal, the same WA lens always shows more on a bigger sensor.
The best example is the new K3 with 24Mp. Everybody raves about the resolution.
So, slowly most of you seem to get the idea, that with new techniques, higher pixel count is desirable.
Regards, Horst
Quote:
And that, if you read back to the beginning, was exactly the point I was bringing up. I for one am finding my self more and more happy to use a shorter focal length lens prime knowing that I can crop it to a longer one due to the improved sensors and fact that I don't print above 8x10. I was confused about perspective, but now realise that perspective is only effected by the relative position of yourself and the objects in the frame, so even better!
Smeggy wrote:And that, if you read back to the beginning, was exactly the point I was bringing up. I for one am finding my self more and more happy to use a shorter focal length lens prime knowing that I can crop it to a longer one due to the improved sensors and fact that I don't print above 8x10. I was confused about perspective, but now realise that perspective is only effected by the relative position of yourself and the objects in the frame, so even better!
Quote:
Indeed the great thing about shooting wide and cropping is that you have much more leeway to tune the composition at home.
In fact I've often made two or three different compositions out of one wide shot
What both of you say, makes a lot of sense. butIndeed the great thing about shooting wide and cropping is that you have much more leeway to tune the composition at home.
In fact I've often made two or three different compositions out of one wide shot
I'll come back to a different topic in this forum.
Suddenly the idea of higher pixel count is very desirable.
Not long ago, when I barracked for FF with 34Mp sensors, There was a big outcry: "Why would you want more pixels?, The only and best pixel count is 16Mp on Pentax Aps-C, larger pixel count is to noisy, to large , have to buy new tele lenses" Forgetting The ability to crop and arrive at the same resolution, forgetting you have to buy new WA lenses, because you can not add to it. "Why would I ever need anything to what I have now".
And so on, in a negative fashion. The comment: You can always buy a wider angle lens, is not quite as simple. Because all other things being equal, the same WA lens always shows more on a bigger sensor.
The best example is the new K3 with 24Mp. Everybody raves about the resolution.
So, slowly most of you seem to get the idea, that with new techniques, higher pixel count is desirable.
Regards, Horst
Comment by Horst posted on Something to ponder! at 28/11/2013 - 22:04
The only exception is suppose would be a polarizing filter,
or special purpose filters and in the old days with a B& W film day a yellow filter.And with old lenses an UV filter for colour. (Old glasses where not UV absorbent)
However a lens shade ( Lens hood, Compendium),is a must for any lens, except a deep seated one, like for example the Pentax-A 50mm f2.8 macro.
A lens hood can only do good and never be bad. It even protects your front element from rain. I have quite a few lenses , Old and new types. but every one has and is stored with a lens hood.
Regards, Horst