All Forum Comments
Comment by MattMatic posted on Tips to Being a Thrifty Photographer at 04/02/2013 - 10:54
Well, to be fair, a pin hole camera is a "toy"
I made my own with an old K mount cap. Drilled a reasonable sized hole first, then got some copper foil and a very fine needle. Then glued the foil+hole to the cap.
Exposure time was achingly slow. Effect was fun to try though!
Laser etched precision holes give better results apparently.
Matt
I made my own with an old K mount cap. Drilled a reasonable sized hole first, then got some copper foil and a very fine needle. Then glued the foil+hole to the cap.
Exposure time was achingly slow. Effect was fun to try though!
Laser etched precision holes give better results apparently.
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on Body cap lens at 04/02/2013 - 10:51
The 'magic' figure of 72ppi was for the 1984 Mac
It conveniently allowed for a one-to-one match for typography. So, 10pt text was 10 pixels. Microsoft came up with the 96ppi since monitors were viewed about 1/3 further away. So 96ppi 'looked' right at the regular viewing distance, but 72dpi matched size-for-size when holding paper up to the screen. This was only for type
Modern monitors have much higher resolutions anyway! For example, the iPad 3 has a 264ppi and there are higher density displays on the way.
But for web, ppi has ZERO relevance. All browsers work purely on pixels, and all graphic web layout is designed purely pixels.
The only place that I've seen ppi make any difference is when placing an image into Adobe InDesign (desk top publishing). InDesign uses the ppi + pixel dimensions to set the default bounding box for the placed graphic. But even then it's relative - since you can just resize and fit to taste.
Matt
It conveniently allowed for a one-to-one match for typography. So, 10pt text was 10 pixels. Microsoft came up with the 96ppi since monitors were viewed about 1/3 further away. So 96ppi 'looked' right at the regular viewing distance, but 72dpi matched size-for-size when holding paper up to the screen. This was only for type
Modern monitors have much higher resolutions anyway! For example, the iPad 3 has a 264ppi and there are higher density displays on the way.
But for web, ppi has ZERO relevance. All browsers work purely on pixels, and all graphic web layout is designed purely pixels.
The only place that I've seen ppi make any difference is when placing an image into Adobe InDesign (desk top publishing). InDesign uses the ppi + pixel dimensions to set the default bounding box for the placed graphic. But even then it's relative - since you can just resize and fit to taste.
Matt
Quote:
My thoughts remain positive, but not sycophantic, for Pentax. I believe the new Ricoh alliance will allow common sense, but I am patient as it takes time.
Given the improvements in AF accuracy and low level handling in the K5II/s, I suspect that the extra funds (and perhaps knowledge) from Ricoh are making things look very positive!My thoughts remain positive, but not sycophantic, for Pentax. I believe the new Ricoh alliance will allow common sense, but I am patient as it takes time.
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on Why do Pentax lag with autofocus? at 01/02/2013 - 12:42
I've resisted the urge to even hold the 645D. I know it'd be fatal
(Park Cameras had one when I picked up the teeny tiny Q)
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on On first holding a 645d at 01/02/2013 - 11:57
My K-5 IIs arrived this morning TOP service from SRS as usual!!!
Wow!
Initial thoughts:
* The new rear LCD is brilliant! But it's not 'creating' the perception of increased detail. Comparing out-the-window shots from the IIs to the shots that were already on the SD card from the Mk1 and there is an astonishing difference in micro-contrast.
* Think there have been some slight tweaks in engineering. The four-way buttons seem more positive, and the SD card not so tight. So that's good.
* Focus accuracy is amazing! I've taken several shots with the FA50/1.4 wide open and it's absolutely bang-on every time. Can't wait to do some portraiture with very wide apertures!
* Low level focus is insanely good. Again, shooting wide open at f/1.4 or f/2.8 - I haven't seen it go wrong. (that's exposures such as 1/8s ISO5000, f/2.8!)
* Moire is possible (of course). Took some shots of my iMac LCD - grizzly moire there! False colours, luminance moire - it's all there! Lightroom does an excellent job of reducing most it (one shot though had some very strange yellow-cast colour induced moire). Stopping down to f/16 helps a lot. But then, I'm never taking shots of LCD screens...
* Detail for landscapes is mind blowing (compared to my Mk1 with the same lenses). BUT the RAW files and JPGs are hovering around 30MB for detailed images! I'll dig around and see if I can find some similar shots to compare.
My view? This isn't just marketing - there is a real advantage But it does come with the responsibility to get to know the behaviour of an AA-less sensor. I know the Mk1 very well, and what I could get from it - and the IIs is a very definite step up (at least for landscapes).
(And already QPcard 203 profiled )
More to come...
Matt
Wow!
Initial thoughts:
* The new rear LCD is brilliant! But it's not 'creating' the perception of increased detail. Comparing out-the-window shots from the IIs to the shots that were already on the SD card from the Mk1 and there is an astonishing difference in micro-contrast.
* Think there have been some slight tweaks in engineering. The four-way buttons seem more positive, and the SD card not so tight. So that's good.
* Focus accuracy is amazing! I've taken several shots with the FA50/1.4 wide open and it's absolutely bang-on every time. Can't wait to do some portraiture with very wide apertures!
* Low level focus is insanely good. Again, shooting wide open at f/1.4 or f/2.8 - I haven't seen it go wrong. (that's exposures such as 1/8s ISO5000, f/2.8!)
* Moire is possible (of course). Took some shots of my iMac LCD - grizzly moire there! False colours, luminance moire - it's all there! Lightroom does an excellent job of reducing most it (one shot though had some very strange yellow-cast colour induced moire). Stopping down to f/16 helps a lot. But then, I'm never taking shots of LCD screens...
* Detail for landscapes is mind blowing (compared to my Mk1 with the same lenses). BUT the RAW files and JPGs are hovering around 30MB for detailed images! I'll dig around and see if I can find some similar shots to compare.
My view? This isn't just marketing - there is a real advantage But it does come with the responsibility to get to know the behaviour of an AA-less sensor. I know the Mk1 very well, and what I could get from it - and the IIs is a very definite step up (at least for landscapes).
(And already QPcard 203 profiled )
More to come...
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on JR K5 IIs review at 01/02/2013 - 11:30
K-5 IIs arrived from SRS this morning - checked it was working and had it upgraded in minutes
Matt
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on New Pentax Firmware updates for 6 cameras at 01/02/2013 - 11:22
I have a penchant for the Pentax colours
I've got the DA16-45 (my son now uses it on his K10D) and it is an excellent lens. Colours, sharpness and contrast are excellent. The range is slightly narrow, but not generally a problem, and the bokeh is, IMHO, ok but not brilliant.
I've had the DA17-70 and that was an excellent lens! Love the range (and still hanker after that range). The sharpness is superb - my copy was not much different from the FA50/1.4 The bokeh is smoother than the DA16-45, and more like the FA24-90 and FA50/1.4 SDM focus is very quiet, but the focus throw is short and the intertia is low (so sometimes it hunts for focus - a gentle finger pressure on the focus ring damped it nicely). I only sold mine to fund the DA*16-50 which I love!
It's a tough call - but the DA16-45 can be had for stupidly low prices if you shop around (seen it around £150!), where as the DA17-70 is easily twice that price second hand
I'd imagine the DA*16-85 will be easily £700+ (given the price of the DA*16-50) ...
Hope that helps!
Matt
I've got the DA16-45 (my son now uses it on his K10D) and it is an excellent lens. Colours, sharpness and contrast are excellent. The range is slightly narrow, but not generally a problem, and the bokeh is, IMHO, ok but not brilliant.
I've had the DA17-70 and that was an excellent lens! Love the range (and still hanker after that range). The sharpness is superb - my copy was not much different from the FA50/1.4 The bokeh is smoother than the DA16-45, and more like the FA24-90 and FA50/1.4 SDM focus is very quiet, but the focus throw is short and the intertia is low (so sometimes it hunts for focus - a gentle finger pressure on the focus ring damped it nicely). I only sold mine to fund the DA*16-50 which I love!
It's a tough call - but the DA16-45 can be had for stupidly low prices if you shop around (seen it around £150!), where as the DA17-70 is easily twice that price second hand
I'd imagine the DA*16-85 will be easily £700+ (given the price of the DA*16-50) ...
Hope that helps!
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on Lenses choice at 01/02/2013 - 10:21
I believe Sri Lanka has some country-wide Internet filtering in place
Other countries have similar things (like China, UAE, etc)
Matt
Other countries have similar things (like China, UAE, etc)
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on BBC - Joel Meyerowitz - Back story at 01/02/2013 - 09:26
Quote:
What we are talking about it rather an improvement to the resolution of fine detail, an improvement in clarity.
Good point. Micro contrast should be better.What we are talking about it rather an improvement to the resolution of fine detail, an improvement in clarity.
I'll find out soon enough... delivery expected tomorrow! Whooop!
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on JR K5 IIs review at 31/01/2013 - 13:37
Cheap white & black fabric for backdrops.
My son also built an adjustable macro flash modifier with an old Pringles tube and some black paint! Hacked to fit over the pop-up flash, and with a diffuser over the plastic tube cap Works very well!
Matt