All Forum Comments
No confirmation on whether this will use a full K mount - but surely it would be craziness to introduce yet another mount.
Comment by MarkTaylor posted on Second Pentax Mirrorless Camera Confirmed. at 18/09/2011 - 12:40
Verrry interesting, but I don't have a DA* 60-250 (or a Q, but this kind of application could potentially sway me on that score). Does anybody know if it is possible to fit some kind of tripod collar or other tripod mount to a DA 55-300? I don't see the combination of that lens and a Q really 'working' any other way.
Comment by MarkTaylor posted on Who says Pentax don't make long lenses at 17/09/2011 - 11:59
http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2011/09/pentax-rz18-compact-has-18x-optical-zoom
Quote:
Sadly, the RZ18 is lacking in the manual shooting mode department.
...Rather kills the appeal for me, making the similarly specified (and extremely competitively priced) Samsung WB700 far more tempting as a potential upgrade to my current compact.Sadly, the RZ18 is lacking in the manual shooting mode department.
Comment by MarkTaylor posted on New Pentax RZ18 at 17/09/2011 - 11:48
ChrisA wrote:
WOO - done it. And remarkably easily, it turned out.
It occurred to me that what I needed was something thin, made of plastic not metal - so, inspired by Carl's suggestion, I used the plastic handle end of a nail file - like this one
Held the camera on my lap, and gradually inserted the file handle between the overlapping wire of the D-ring. Since the handle starts off thin, and then gets thicker, it was perfect for gradually increasing the gap.
As soon as the gap was big enough, the ring just rotated easily and could be removed with the flexible protector.
No damage or scratches, and I reckon it would be similarly easy to get it back on.
Hope this helps someone else sometime..
I would just have taped it down to stop it rattling. WOO - done it. And remarkably easily, it turned out.
It occurred to me that what I needed was something thin, made of plastic not metal - so, inspired by Carl's suggestion, I used the plastic handle end of a nail file - like this one
Held the camera on my lap, and gradually inserted the file handle between the overlapping wire of the D-ring. Since the handle starts off thin, and then gets thicker, it was perfect for gradually increasing the gap.
As soon as the gap was big enough, the ring just rotated easily and could be removed with the flexible protector.
No damage or scratches, and I reckon it would be similarly easy to get it back on.
Hope this helps someone else sometime..
I'm not modifying my K-5 for anything less than full remote operability (including live view monitoring) to mount on a mini RC helicopter! (Which will never happen, BTW, but it's nice as a completely unrealistic pipe dream).
Comment by MarkTaylor posted on My first K-5 question... at 17/09/2011 - 11:35
Offertonhatter wrote:
However with our discussion, he did say that just about all DA lenses will work on FF, and if the FF came out, then there would be a range of lenses available...
I have to say that sounds a little dubious to me. If the lenses work fine on FF why would they not be denoted "D FA" like the macros, instead of "DA"? I have my suspicions that they may "work" on FF but would suffer from some problems - some severe vignetting at the least.However with our discussion, he did say that just about all DA lenses will work on FF, and if the FF came out, then there would be a range of lenses available...
Comment by MarkTaylor posted on Pentax Q and other bits of info. at 17/09/2011 - 10:45
Whilst we're on the subject of perfection, to attempt to apply the term to any form of art, photography included, is ridiculous. A 'perfect sphere' (for example) can, in theory, be defined mathematically, thus objectively. A 'perfect photograph' cannot. When it comes to any form of art 'perfection' is in the eye of the beholder, thus subjective.
In order to judge an artwork to be perfect objectively, the observer would have to have perfect judgement, and employ perfect criteria against which to judge standards in the first place. I think I'm on incredibly solid ground when I say no such person or set of criteria exists.
In order to judge an artwork to be perfect objectively, the observer would have to have perfect judgement, and employ perfect criteria against which to judge standards in the first place. I think I'm on incredibly solid ground when I say no such person or set of criteria exists.
Comment by MarkTaylor posted on professional professional at 12/09/2011 - 19:17
Wow! Thanks for all the positive comments. I'm particuarly happy with the results myself as this was my first 'serious' attempt to capture fireworks.
I tried some exposures with a much shorter time (and correspondingly higher ISO) but they did not come out as well regardless of the timing as they just tended to capture 'bits' of light which look far less spectacular than the real thing. I think you need a slightly longer exposure as fireworks actually consist of moving points of light which make 'light trails' in the sky so it's much like capturing light trails from traffic and so forth.
When perceiving them with the naked eye I think we tend to see them more as 'trails' anyway because they move quite fast and they illuminate the smoke trails they leave behind, however to a camera these smoke trails would barely show up compared to the leading 'bright points' of light.
gartmore wrote:
They're great. I, too, like 6 the most, I'm intrigued by your exposure times were you opening the shutter before hand in anticipation?
In some cases I was opening the shutter when I saw the initial 'flares' going up so taking my reaction time into account, probaly only about a second or less before the actual 'explosion'. In other cases there were just multiple explosions going off at once for sustained periods so the timing of opening the shutter was fairly arbitrary.They're great. I, too, like 6 the most, I'm intrigued by your exposure times were you opening the shutter before hand in anticipation?
I tried some exposures with a much shorter time (and correspondingly higher ISO) but they did not come out as well regardless of the timing as they just tended to capture 'bits' of light which look far less spectacular than the real thing. I think you need a slightly longer exposure as fireworks actually consist of moving points of light which make 'light trails' in the sky so it's much like capturing light trails from traffic and so forth.
When perceiving them with the naked eye I think we tend to see them more as 'trails' anyway because they move quite fast and they illuminate the smoke trails they leave behind, however to a camera these smoke trails would barely show up compared to the leading 'bright points' of light.
Comment by MarkTaylor posted on Fireworks! at 09/09/2011 - 15:55
A couple more...
Five.
[IMG]http://i1204.photobucket.com/albums/bb411/msitaylor/IMGP0145.jpg[/IMG]
Six.
[IMG]http://i1204.photobucket.com/albums/bb411/msitaylor/IMGP0273.jpg[/IMG]
Five.
[IMG]http://i1204.photobucket.com/albums/bb411/msitaylor/IMGP0145.jpg[/IMG]
Six.
[IMG]http://i1204.photobucket.com/albums/bb411/msitaylor/IMGP0273.jpg[/IMG]
Comment by MarkTaylor posted on Fireworks! at 06/09/2011 - 19:19
End of Edinburgh Festival, Fireworks Display. Just got Lightroom so experimented with a couple of different PP treatments. Sigma 8-16mm lens all shots at 14-16mm, F/8, 2-2.5 secs exposure, ISO 80-250.
One.
[IMG]http://i1204.photobucket.com/albums/bb411/msitaylor/IMGP0241.jpg[/IMG]
Two.
[IMG]http://i1204.photobucket.com/albums/bb411/msitaylor/IMGP0142.jpg[/IMG]
Three.
[IMG]http://i1204.photobucket.com/albums/bb411/msitaylor/IMGP0177.jpg[/IMG]
Four.
[IMG]http://i1204.photobucket.com/albums/bb411/msitaylor/IMGP0215.jpg[/IMG]
One.
[IMG]http://i1204.photobucket.com/albums/bb411/msitaylor/IMGP0241.jpg[/IMG]
Two.
[IMG]http://i1204.photobucket.com/albums/bb411/msitaylor/IMGP0142.jpg[/IMG]
Three.
[IMG]http://i1204.photobucket.com/albums/bb411/msitaylor/IMGP0177.jpg[/IMG]
Four.
[IMG]http://i1204.photobucket.com/albums/bb411/msitaylor/IMGP0215.jpg[/IMG]
Comment by MarkTaylor posted on Fireworks! at 05/09/2011 - 21:58
Bleurgh.
Comment by MarkTaylor posted on Another pointless thread at 03/09/2011 - 13:49
