All Forum Comments
Comment by MrCynical posted on What will the new Pentax really offer us? at 09/10/2013 - 13:27
[quote="Imaging Resource"]It's not often that we label an imaging technology "revolutionary", but if ever one deserved to be called such, this is it. It's a fundamentally different approach to anti-aliasing, and one that appears to have surprisingly few downsides associated with it. For the first time ever, there's a camera on the market that lets the end-user decide when they want a low-pass filter, and when they don't, with little apparent penalty regardless of their choice. And it was Pentax that brought it to us.[/quote]http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/pentax-k3/pentax-k3A.HTM
Comment by MrCynical posted on Officially K-3? at 08/10/2013 - 13:40
[quote="Warehouse Express"]AF: SAFOX 11, 27 points (25 cross type)[/quote]FINALLY Pentax! Assuming that (there being more points in the same frame size) the AF points will no longer be the size of dinner plates, this is the change they should have made a body or two ago. The current AF system has severe difficulty focusing on the eyes of someone wearing framed glasses for example.
Can't afford to preorder one (just bought a lovely 35mm for my NEX) but this is definitely on my 'maybe early next year' radar.
Can't afford to preorder one (just bought a lovely 35mm for my NEX) but this is definitely on my 'maybe early next year' radar.
Comment by MrCynical posted on Officially K-3? at 08/10/2013 - 12:36
Smeggypants wrote:
The question is should manufacturers be responsible for educating photographers?
I think they need to be clearer about their design priorities if those don't match typical consumer expectations for the type of lens. People tend to expect that a normal-ish lens will be good for landscapes, and will criticise it if it isn't. Just the same as they expect a medium-telephoto lens to be good for portraits, and will criticise it if it has poor bokeh (etc. etc.).jules wrote:
Basically it's as good as it can be for the job it was designed to do John!
Doesn't however stop it being compared to things designed with a different aspect of photography in mind though, the Lens that is sharp everywhere from wide open to fully stopped down and right thru it's zoom range, as we all know does not exist.
I love the term "Portrait Lens" which basically means good Bokeh and rubbish edges wide open, like my 16-50, it's soft wide open at the edges pretty much on all focal lengths but stopped down to Landscape apertures it's great, and so does double duty here for me. I'm being sweepingly general I know but perhaps if manufacturers were more honest about what a lens is for, it would stop the confusion but that would cost them sales in certain areas and so would never happen.
The Sigma 30/1.4 was slated for being soft at the edges especially wide open by the "sharpness or death" crowd. They didn't understand the ethos of the lens in which Sigma concentrated on making the centre reason sharp on the basis that one doesn't need sharpness to render good bokeh.Basically it's as good as it can be for the job it was designed to do John!
Doesn't however stop it being compared to things designed with a different aspect of photography in mind though, the Lens that is sharp everywhere from wide open to fully stopped down and right thru it's zoom range, as we all know does not exist.
I love the term "Portrait Lens" which basically means good Bokeh and rubbish edges wide open, like my 16-50, it's soft wide open at the edges pretty much on all focal lengths but stopped down to Landscape apertures it's great, and so does double duty here for me. I'm being sweepingly general I know but perhaps if manufacturers were more honest about what a lens is for, it would stop the confusion but that would cost them sales in certain areas and so would never happen.
The question is should manufacturers be responsible for educating photographers?
Comment by MrCynical posted on 18-135 has been slaughtered by Photozone at 21/09/2013 - 00:32
johnriley wrote:
Software is incredibly powerful, but it isn't the only answer and it isn't a panacea.
Fair enough, I thought that 'it gives you a Monet-type impression' was a defence of the 18-135's border quality, rather than a point about photography in general Quote:
As for Monet, why not just use a properly-functioning lens and then apply a Lightroom softening filter?
Because the Lightroom filter is one specific type of effect. On the other hand, we might find a cheap Domiplan lens in a car boot sale and find that it produces something quite different and useful for portraiture or flowers. We could experiment with various old lenses. perhaps a brass portrait lens, or an Aero-Ektar or anything else.As for Monet, why not just use a properly-functioning lens and then apply a Lightroom softening filter?
Software is incredibly powerful, but it isn't the only answer and it isn't a panacea.
Comment by MrCynical posted on 18-135 has been slaughtered by Photozone at 20/09/2013 - 01:43
johnriley wrote:
If you read the technical results in detail then it shows what might be expected ffrom thi, and any other, lens. That is, very high MTF20 results showing the scrisp contrast and "grittiness" and the lower but OK MTF50 results that show this is at the expense of fine, high resolution.
This is actually the same compromise that we get, to a lesser extent of variation, with 50mm lenses. The f/1.8 lenses have better overall performance and flatter field. The f/1.4 lenses have high gritty contrast at the expense of fine resolution. This gives us the classic "reportage" look, ideal for newspaper reproduction where tones are curtailed.
It all comes back to understanding what lenses are designed for, without even unconsciously denigrating something with comments like "for the masses" which dismisses the lens under discussion as for the uninformed.
Every lens has possibilities, even a lousy lens can make a fortune for someone using it in the right way. If you want Monet style landscapes, then maybe a battered old lens with a misplaced element or two might be just the thing.
I'm sorry John, but range and design priorities aren't sufficient to explain the 18-135's lack of anything that could be described as border resolution beyond 50mm. If range is the reason, why is the Nikon 18-200mm (which obviously has an even more extreme range) superior to the Pentax 18-135mm throughout the latter's range - and in fact has better resolution at 200mm than the 18-135 does at 135mm?If you read the technical results in detail then it shows what might be expected ffrom thi, and any other, lens. That is, very high MTF20 results showing the scrisp contrast and "grittiness" and the lower but OK MTF50 results that show this is at the expense of fine, high resolution.
This is actually the same compromise that we get, to a lesser extent of variation, with 50mm lenses. The f/1.8 lenses have better overall performance and flatter field. The f/1.4 lenses have high gritty contrast at the expense of fine resolution. This gives us the classic "reportage" look, ideal for newspaper reproduction where tones are curtailed.
It all comes back to understanding what lenses are designed for, without even unconsciously denigrating something with comments like "for the masses" which dismisses the lens under discussion as for the uninformed.
Every lens has possibilities, even a lousy lens can make a fortune for someone using it in the right way. If you want Monet style landscapes, then maybe a battered old lens with a misplaced element or two might be just the thing.
As for Monet, why not just use a properly-functioning lens and then apply a Lightroom softening filter? (Or for the in-camera-only purists/film shooters, a physical softening filter). That way you get the low-resolution image when you want the Monet effect, and reasonably sharp images when you don't want the Monet effect.
[quote="jules"]Doesn't however stop it being compared to things designed with a different aspect of photography in mind though, the Lens that is sharp everywhere from wide open to fully stopped down and right thru it's zoom range, as we all know does not exist.[/quote]http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/431-canon_70200_4is_5d?start=1
Comment by MrCynical posted on 18-135 has been slaughtered by Photozone at 19/09/2013 - 23:29
wvbarnes wrote:
This is the only Pentax lens with this DC motor, no idea why as I think it should be standard.
Because they have unsold SDM lenses, which would become even more difficult to sell if they announced new DC-equipped refreshed of the DA* lenses. Pentax's response to SDM failures makes Microsoft's initial response to 360 RRODs look professional.This is the only Pentax lens with this DC motor, no idea why as I think it should be standard.
Comment by MrCynical posted on 18-135mm WR Users Opinions at 17/06/2013 - 21:43
Dear oh dear. I thought I had as many K-mount lenses as I would need with my DA Limiteds and Sigma go and do this. It's internal focusing and zooming as well, which means that using a raincover with it will actually be easier than on my existing lenses.
Comment by MrCynical posted on Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 WILL be available in Pentax mount at 16/06/2013 - 00:41
Do what I did - cheat. I modified my Helios 44-M-4 (with a shard of AOL CD and some loctite ) so that the pin is held down permanently.
Comment by MrCynical posted on Carl Zeis lens at 29/04/2013 - 19:15
Algernon wrote:
I'm quite sure Gareth hasn't got a Sigma 50mm f1.4 prime....
he did have a 50mm FA 1.4? In fact I've never heard of anyone
owning a Sigma 50mm f1.4
I could understand someone using just a 35mm lens on a wedding but
you couldn't do group shots with a 50mm unless your in the middle
of an open field and can move right back and what if it rains?
-
If I remember right the Sigma 50mm f1.4 is an internal focusing lens, so he could just stick a rain cover on.I'm quite sure Gareth hasn't got a Sigma 50mm f1.4 prime....
he did have a 50mm FA 1.4? In fact I've never heard of anyone
owning a Sigma 50mm f1.4
I could understand someone using just a 35mm lens on a wedding but
you couldn't do group shots with a 50mm unless your in the middle
of an open field and can move right back and what if it rains?
-
Comment by MrCynical posted on Pentax Popularity at 27/04/2013 - 19:53
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/smart-new-k-3-uses-ibis-to-create-aa-filter/
This could be a good way of attracting people to Pentax: with body/sensor performance very similar at any given price point, this (like the Olympus OM-D's five-axis stabilisation in m4/3 land) could give Pentax a real differentiation point.
Thank [insert deity of choice] that I'm too busy with uni work (haven't had much time for photography this year, if I'm honest :blush to even begin to consider a new camera body at the moment. This pleases my wallet!