All Forum Comments
Hmm if copper sulphate is a fungicide, it might be doubly effective Bernhard!
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on how to store camera and lenses at 03/07/2012 - 18:21
dinneenp wrote:
It is annoying that there we are in the minority; it's be nice to be able to borrow lenses from fellow photographers....
On the plus side, we can scavenge all their old lenses they have lying around since they switched to Canikon It is annoying that there we are in the minority; it's be nice to be able to borrow lenses from fellow photographers....
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on 2012 DSLR Camera Online Buyer Report at 02/07/2012 - 18:34
JAK wrote:
The same thing has happened here with the 'Night' competition, so just a reminder that the intention is that you have to go out and take the photograph after the competition is announced. Back catalogue entries are no no's!
To be fair, it wasn't taken at night either!!! The same thing has happened here with the 'Night' competition, so just a reminder that the intention is that you have to go out and take the photograph after the competition is announced. Back catalogue entries are no no's!
However, to her credit, it was taken on a Pentax camera.
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on Monthly Competition #1 - Night Shots discusion at 02/07/2012 - 18:30
womble wrote:
K.
You can get slides from digital too, e.g. DigitalSlides.co.uk. I wonder if any of the companies that convert negatives to slides actually do it digitally these days.greynolds999 wrote:
You could, of course, scan your old negatives into digital images which could be displayed on a computer or digital projector which (depending on the numbers you are talking about) might be a cheaper option overall.
... and almost certainly better quality. Copy slides are rarely as good as the originals even with specialist copy slide film. I'm not certain I have ever seen specialist neg to slide film.You could, of course, scan your old negatives into digital images which could be displayed on a computer or digital projector which (depending on the numbers you are talking about) might be a cheaper option overall.
K.
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on Negatives / Slide enquiry at 02/07/2012 - 18:25
Quote:
but as to images being useable without looking at histograms and compensation dials too much both the Sigma 8-16mm and Pentax 12-24 pass that test with flying colours.
I think you would need to do a test with constant light levels to check whether the 10-20mm really does have exposure issues (perhaps it's light transmission is just less?) Please don't feel obliged as you've done enough testing already! But it would be interesting to me as I've never really considered that lenses can 'underexpose' compared to others, and I don't think I noticed it on my copy of the 10-20mm (or at least not as a significant enough defect to give it any thought).but as to images being useable without looking at histograms and compensation dials too much both the Sigma 8-16mm and Pentax 12-24 pass that test with flying colours.
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on Upgrade from Pentax 18-250mm (at wide end!) at 02/07/2012 - 18:17
JAK wrote:
I'm sorry about the lighting inconsistencies in those shots but I did promise to take then and it is just one of those days where the light is anything but consistent. I will say that every time I've used the 10-20 the results have been similar in comparison to the other two. It was suggested above that the 10-20 would benefit from some exposure compensation dialled in. While I agree with that comment why should it be necessary for that lens when the others do not need it? I may have some older comparison shots and if I can find them I'll post them later.
My first ultra wide was the 10-20 and if I'd been truly happy with it I may never have bought the others. There is also the thought that perhaps my 10-20mm is below par but without a side by side test that cannot be proven.
I strongly recommend the 8-16mm, one doesn't have to use it at 8mm but one can if one wishes!
John
But I don't think the darkness, requiring ev comp, is necessarily the lens's fault... The exposure on the sky looks the same on both shots. I used to have the 10-20 and never noticed it consistently darker than other lenses. I noticed the vignetting though!I'm sorry about the lighting inconsistencies in those shots but I did promise to take then and it is just one of those days where the light is anything but consistent. I will say that every time I've used the 10-20 the results have been similar in comparison to the other two. It was suggested above that the 10-20 would benefit from some exposure compensation dialled in. While I agree with that comment why should it be necessary for that lens when the others do not need it? I may have some older comparison shots and if I can find them I'll post them later.
My first ultra wide was the 10-20 and if I'd been truly happy with it I may never have bought the others. There is also the thought that perhaps my 10-20mm is below par but without a side by side test that cannot be proven.
I strongly recommend the 8-16mm, one doesn't have to use it at 8mm but one can if one wishes!
John
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on Upgrade from Pentax 18-250mm (at wide end!) at 01/07/2012 - 18:54
Very nice, I like 'Near Zennor' particularly, captures the mood of the area very nicely.
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on Cape Cornwall and around at 01/07/2012 - 14:34
ChrisR wrote:
Why does it matter where the green button is, as it is only use is in play back mode to reduce an enlarged image on the rear screen, and as such it is adjacent to the screen, a very convenient position.
Take care.
It doesn't do that on mine! However I use it for stop down metering all the time, and sometimes struggle to locate next to the (similarly imperfectly placed) AF button.... Why does it matter where the green button is, as it is only use is in play back mode to reduce an enlarged image on the rear screen, and as such it is adjacent to the screen, a very convenient position.
Take care.
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on K5 whinge at 01/07/2012 - 14:27
milamber wrote:
Actually the apparent underexposure of the 10-20mm is easily fixed through Paintshop, but it still doesn't have the depth and vibrancy of colour of the 8-16mm shot, in my opinion.
Maybe right, but a sunlit field is inherently going to have more depth and vibrance compared to a dull one.Actually the apparent underexposure of the 10-20mm is easily fixed through Paintshop, but it still doesn't have the depth and vibrancy of colour of the 8-16mm shot, in my opinion.
Look at the tree in the distance - you can see it catching the sun in shot 1, but in shot 2 it is in shadow. The main issue here is the multi-segment metering which has exposed for the sky in all the shots, while the lighting on the field has varied. Fair enough as that preserves the highlights in the clouds.
Nevertheless I wouldn't be surprised if the 8-16mm was in fact the winner. It seems an excellent lens all round, and at 12mm you are using it in the middle of it's range where distortion is minimal.
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on Upgrade from Pentax 18-250mm (at wide end!) at 01/07/2012 - 14:12
That's a bizarre result from the 10-20. Did you try one with +EV dialled in, as you can't really make an IQ comparison from such an underexposed shot! - You positive the sun didn't just go deeper into the clouds?
On a casual glance, I'd give the nod to the 8-16mm, but if the lighting conditions were changing shot to shot, that's going to have a major effect on the impression of contrast and colour.
Edit... Looking at the shots again, the sky is about the same on the 8-16 and the 10-20 shots, but the foreground is underexposed on the 10-20 shot.
One of those days with rapidly moving clouds and constantly changing light?
I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from *one shot* where the 10-20 appears to underxpose, because outdoors, light levels change, whereas the exposure settings for this test are the same across all shots.
On a casual glance, I'd give the nod to the 8-16mm, but if the lighting conditions were changing shot to shot, that's going to have a major effect on the impression of contrast and colour.
Edit... Looking at the shots again, the sky is about the same on the 8-16 and the 10-20 shots, but the foreground is underexposed on the 10-20 shot.
One of those days with rapidly moving clouds and constantly changing light?
I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from *one shot* where the 10-20 appears to underxpose, because outdoors, light levels change, whereas the exposure settings for this test are the same across all shots.
Comment by Pentaxophile posted on Upgrade from Pentax 18-250mm (at wide end!) at 01/07/2012 - 14:06
