lovely shot Liam, looks like you were out earlier than I was.

I love the way fresh snow makes things look, gonna have to take a holiday somewhere where it happens a lot I think, just don't get enough chances to shoot it in this country.

everyone I have showed these to has commented on the bikes, I'm glad it's so popular, it was one of those "that would make a good photo" moments which actually worked out.

I haven't tried a B&W conversion yet, might give it a go later on

just some piccies I took on my way to work this morning




K10D
Tamron 90mm SP macro
F2.5
1/250th
ISO200




*ist DL2
SMC DA 18-55 @ 50
F8
1/50th
ISO 200

looks like lots of people had the same thought I did on seeing the condition of the road

ie
"not on your life"

well I suppose that just goes to show that some lenses from any brand must be made on Friday afternoon

I think as with many things the people who have no trouble tend to be less vocal than those who do. It's probably a case of (and don't quote me on these stats I am litterally pulling them from thin air) 90% of all sigma lenses are fine compared to 95% of Pentax

possibly my wording is a little unfair, I should stress that I have not actually used the sigma 10-20 myself. My comment is based on the comments of people on Phototakers.com. Since I have a reputation for being able to find 1 dud piece of equipment in a pile of working ones I am possibly more paranoid about quality control issues than most people.

I also get the impression that the perceived QC issues may (I stress may) be the result of differing opinions on what makes a good lens. The Sigma is said to have more barrel distortion than the Tokina 12-24 (and by extension the Pentax, which has the same optical design)

edit, I found a thread from a while back on Phototakers discussing the relative merits of the Sigma 10-20 and Tokina 12-24 http://www.phototakers.com/forum/ftopic46989.html?highlight=angle

the only thing with the Sigma is I hear the sample variation is quite bad. There are a lot of people who are REALLY pleased with their sigma 10-20, and a lot of people who got Friday afternoon models.

If I was looking at that sigma I'd want to try the exact lens I was buying on my camera first.

I agree completely. Being able to do it on the camera is kinda cool, but the result of doing it in photoshop is likely to be better.

But auto bracketing changes the physical exposure settings, you have to take multiple shots otherwise all you are doing is developing the RAW file +- 1 stop. Since the K10D RAW files are typically ~10 megs and its JPGs around 3 you might as well have just shot RAW in the first place.

If you are talking about WB, filters etc, it is my understanding that the K10D does this already. It's not something that interests me, so I don't use it.


No matter what advances Pentax and friends make to in camera editing, it will never be able to stand up to doing the same thing later in Photoshop. I would much rather pay Pentax £600 for a really 1st rate camera with no editing capabilities than £600 for a second rate camera with the ability to run Photoshop Elements.

dear lord Dan that second one is just insane!!!!

you mean sorta like this




lol kidding, that isn't a penny at all. It's from my MSci project last year. It's long chain hyrodocarbon molecules on a graphite surface. Scanning Tunneling Microscopes are fun

Dan, I salute you, don't thin I can better that without actually resorting to a microscope (though I did see an Oly microscope camera setup on ebay earlier....)

I tried reversing the 18-55 at 18 on the 80-320 with a 2x converter but the viewfinder is so dark you can't see anything.