All Forum Comments
Comment by JAK posted on Macro | The mating Wasp at 04/04/2012 - 11:03
Makes those bargain Amazon buys before Christmas even better value.
John
John
Comment by JAK posted on Pentax lenses price increasing by 15-90%? at 04/04/2012 - 01:43
Well found. Let's hope the OP picks up on it and has a read.
Of note is that the author's shots are effective despite not being all over sharp!
Probably worth linking to the home page of that author too as there are other articles that may prove useful for someone involved in that line of business.
link
John
Of note is that the author's shots are effective despite not being all over sharp!
Probably worth linking to the home page of that author too as there are other articles that may prove useful for someone involved in that line of business.
link
John
Comment by JAK posted on getting all over sharpness? at 04/04/2012 - 01:32
pentaxian450 wrote:
I already said that the only solution (in camera) is to use a smaller aperture. Otherwise, there is focus stacking.
I think we all know what we mean when we refer to a full frame camera/sensor by now! For many years the Olympus half frame cameras have been around - they were advertised as such - they literally were a half 35mm frame (albeit the same size as a full 35mm cine frame.) We understand what that means though but by the same logic you used for designating APS-C full frame I guess you'd call those Olympus half frame cameras full frame too. Probably technically right but no one else would understand and confuse everyone no end!JAK wrote:
that's why we would like a full frame sensor from Pentax.
John
A "full frame" (which is a misnomer, since APS-C is a full frame also) would give LESS depth of field with all parameters being EQUIVALENT.that's why we would like a full frame sensor from Pentax.
John
I already said that the only solution (in camera) is to use a smaller aperture. Otherwise, there is focus stacking.
Re DOF, a lens swapped between different cameras (e.g. a 50mm set at a certain f stop and distance from a subject) would have exactly the same depth of field each time, be that on an APS-C, full frame, Pentax Q camera etc. What would differ on each would be the field of view.
Your suggestion to use a smaller aperture was the one initially given to the OP.
John
Comment by JAK posted on getting all over sharpness? at 04/04/2012 - 01:08
For info regarding polarizing filters, some makes of DSLR need the use of a circular polarizer which are a newer and more expensive variety (that is circular as to the way the filter glass is made, not the shape of it.) Fortunately Pentax cameras are fine with older normal ones.
With digital, there is one thing you can easily do that cannot be done so easily with film. That is to play around with filter effects by 'post processing' your images. Some effects cannot be done this way though, hence the recommendations for polarizers and ND filters where the effects have to be captured while the image is created.
John
With digital, there is one thing you can easily do that cannot be done so easily with film. That is to play around with filter effects by 'post processing' your images. Some effects cannot be done this way though, hence the recommendations for polarizers and ND filters where the effects have to be captured while the image is created.
John
Comment by JAK posted on Tips for Buying Lens Filters for a Newbie. at 03/04/2012 - 20:16
Did you cover the use of colour filters for black & white photography on your course?
If you did and wish to contininue trying the effects they produce, the K-x has a Filter Effect mode in the Custom Image Setting menu when monochrome is selected. This allows simulating the use of Green, Yellow, Orange, Red etc. filters without having to have the real thing.
UV filters were certainly useful for film photography as some emulsions were prone to changing colour when there was an abundance of UV light. This sometimes caused a photograph of blue flowers to look purple, for instance. Landscapes could take on a strong bluish cast so a UV filter was used to reduce some visible light in the violet part of the spectrum. Some camera sensors can still be prone to this and it has been said that they can help reduce purple fringing in digital cameras (often referred to as chromatic aberration.) So while, as you say, they can be considered lens protectors, they can also still perform a valid role beyond that in the digital age. It depends on the camera and lens as to how useful that role is. Personally I'd rather wipe wayward finger prints and dust off a replaceable filter rather than the optic itself and have the filter in situ ready for when the lens is used on a film camera.
A polarizer filter is useful to reduce unwanted reflections and darken skies but I wouldn't think of it as a priority. Also a neutral density filter helps in the making of creative shots using long exposures, but again not a priority. You may think different!
For good buys, start looking for some good second hand ones from eBay or a dealer who deals in second hand cameras. While you tend to get what you pay for, second hand prices can be a fraction of buying new.
Can you get any follow up advice from those who ran your course? Alternatively or as well as consider joining a camera club where they'll have speakers to enlighten on all manner of photographic matters.
John
If you did and wish to contininue trying the effects they produce, the K-x has a Filter Effect mode in the Custom Image Setting menu when monochrome is selected. This allows simulating the use of Green, Yellow, Orange, Red etc. filters without having to have the real thing.
UV filters were certainly useful for film photography as some emulsions were prone to changing colour when there was an abundance of UV light. This sometimes caused a photograph of blue flowers to look purple, for instance. Landscapes could take on a strong bluish cast so a UV filter was used to reduce some visible light in the violet part of the spectrum. Some camera sensors can still be prone to this and it has been said that they can help reduce purple fringing in digital cameras (often referred to as chromatic aberration.) So while, as you say, they can be considered lens protectors, they can also still perform a valid role beyond that in the digital age. It depends on the camera and lens as to how useful that role is. Personally I'd rather wipe wayward finger prints and dust off a replaceable filter rather than the optic itself and have the filter in situ ready for when the lens is used on a film camera.
A polarizer filter is useful to reduce unwanted reflections and darken skies but I wouldn't think of it as a priority. Also a neutral density filter helps in the making of creative shots using long exposures, but again not a priority. You may think different!
For good buys, start looking for some good second hand ones from eBay or a dealer who deals in second hand cameras. While you tend to get what you pay for, second hand prices can be a fraction of buying new.
Can you get any follow up advice from those who ran your course? Alternatively or as well as consider joining a camera club where they'll have speakers to enlighten on all manner of photographic matters.
John
Comment by JAK posted on Tips for Buying Lens Filters for a Newbie. at 03/04/2012 - 20:08
So what do you suggest the OP does to enhance his image.. that is what this thread is supposed to be about!
I do not disagree with what you have said but it isn't that cut and dried. The cropped, wider lens may be far superior (sharper) to the longer lens then the reverse would be true. But what you say is correct if everything else is equal - that's why we would like a full frame sensor from Pentax.
John
I do not disagree with what you have said but it isn't that cut and dried. The cropped, wider lens may be far superior (sharper) to the longer lens then the reverse would be true. But what you say is correct if everything else is equal - that's why we would like a full frame sensor from Pentax.
John
Comment by JAK posted on getting all over sharpness? at 03/04/2012 - 19:24
WobblyGoblin wrote:
Lots of speculation too that Pentax were locking people in with rebates on K5s just prior to the increase, and/or that Pentax are about to release a super camera which will justify the prices...
Would that the the April Fool K-3 I wonder?Lots of speculation too that Pentax were locking people in with rebates on K5s just prior to the increase, and/or that Pentax are about to release a super camera which will justify the prices...
Be great if it really was a K-5 clone with a full frame sensor. I feel sure Pentax could do that.
John
Comment by JAK posted on Pentax lenses price increasing by 15-90%? at 03/04/2012 - 16:53
Has it got a battery in it, and if so does it have a little plastic tab to stop the battery running down?
As to which button to press, what does the instruction leaflet say?
Also, don't forget to switch on the remote 'receiver' in the camera.
It'll be one of the settings in the drive mode menu where you can choose single/continuous shutter releases etc.
John
As to which button to press, what does the instruction leaflet say?
Also, don't forget to switch on the remote 'receiver' in the camera.
It'll be one of the settings in the drive mode menu where you can choose single/continuous shutter releases etc.
John
Comment by JAK posted on Remote Controlling your camera HELP at 03/04/2012 - 14:39
Believe me I have.
If you change focal length and move in closer then the image will have changed so you're not comparing like with like plus I've suggested a way to the OP that will make his image more acceptable (albeit not all over sharp in focus) using exactly the same set up that he used in the image he posted and using even the same aperture!
What will not change the depth of field is just changing lenses, keeping the cameras where it is, then cropping the resulting image down to the original view.
I see Frogherder has Googled depth of field and found this table which is pretty useful for making comparisons:
http://www.dofmaster.com/doftable.html
In reality depth of field doesn't exist for anything other than a pinhole camera. When lenses get involved they all have a focal point somewhere and the depth of field is just what looks acceptably sharp. What would look sharp in an enprint size photo may look dreadful in a 20x16, but even then it depends on the viewing distance. Likewise consider a web image greatly enlarged, or a fuzzy image reduced for the web - it may well look fine then.
Hope the OP doesn't mind me using his image as an example (tell me if you do and I'll remove it):
Agreed it still isn't all over sharp (it could be sharpened more) but that may well be acceptable for some uses. I've seen worse on eBay where dealers have been selling expensive photographic equipment!
Ideally it's a matter of getting the part of the photo sharp that matters the most, like getting the eye of an eagle sharp rather than its wing tip. In this picture the back of the image is sharp but the front isn't and that is where the eye looks first in this instance. Most casual viewers though probably wouldn't even notice.
John
If you change focal length and move in closer then the image will have changed so you're not comparing like with like plus I've suggested a way to the OP that will make his image more acceptable (albeit not all over sharp in focus) using exactly the same set up that he used in the image he posted and using even the same aperture!
What will not change the depth of field is just changing lenses, keeping the cameras where it is, then cropping the resulting image down to the original view.
I see Frogherder has Googled depth of field and found this table which is pretty useful for making comparisons:
http://www.dofmaster.com/doftable.html
In reality depth of field doesn't exist for anything other than a pinhole camera. When lenses get involved they all have a focal point somewhere and the depth of field is just what looks acceptably sharp. What would look sharp in an enprint size photo may look dreadful in a 20x16, but even then it depends on the viewing distance. Likewise consider a web image greatly enlarged, or a fuzzy image reduced for the web - it may well look fine then.
Hope the OP doesn't mind me using his image as an example (tell me if you do and I'll remove it):
Agreed it still isn't all over sharp (it could be sharpened more) but that may well be acceptable for some uses. I've seen worse on eBay where dealers have been selling expensive photographic equipment!
Ideally it's a matter of getting the part of the photo sharp that matters the most, like getting the eye of an eagle sharp rather than its wing tip. In this picture the back of the image is sharp but the front isn't and that is where the eye looks first in this instance. Most casual viewers though probably wouldn't even notice.
John
Comment by JAK posted on getting all over sharpness? at 03/04/2012 - 12:43
John