All Forum Comments
I don't know if they make this sort of thing but I'm looking for a short hand strap for my K-x. I've heard some clip to the normal anchoring point on the side and then fasten to the tripod screw-in underneath. Does anyone know where to get such a thing?
Comment by Rowmac posted on Hand strap but not a neck strap at 21/08/2010 - 08:56
Mike and John,
You've cleared it up a little better for me. Fisheyes have a much greater initial curvature on the front lens than rectilinear giving fish eyes their 180 degree advantage. I now know it's possible to go for a short focal length without going full fisheye. Thanks guys!
You've cleared it up a little better for me. Fisheyes have a much greater initial curvature on the front lens than rectilinear giving fish eyes their 180 degree advantage. I now know it's possible to go for a short focal length without going full fisheye. Thanks guys!
Comment by Rowmac posted on Wide Angle or Fish Eyes? at 20/08/2010 - 13:34
Dangermouse wrote:
Angelina Jolie? I think I'd rather Dita von Teese...
Hear hear!Angelina Jolie? I think I'd rather Dita von Teese...
Comment by Rowmac posted on Wide Angle or Fish Eyes? at 18/08/2010 - 20:43
Anvh wrote:
For the exposure problems, that's why there are GND (graduated neutral density) filters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graduated_neutral_density_filter
Cheers! Rowmac wrote:
Pardon my lack of knowledge but IQ?
Had a brief look at some of your landscape photos and they look very good. If I may ask, how did you balance exposure between land and sky? Every time I make an attempt at landscapes, my K-x either adjusts according to the sky and land comes out underexposed or it picks land and the sky is far too bright. Any tips?
IQ = Image QualityPardon my lack of knowledge but IQ?
Had a brief look at some of your landscape photos and they look very good. If I may ask, how did you balance exposure between land and sky? Every time I make an attempt at landscapes, my K-x either adjusts according to the sky and land comes out underexposed or it picks land and the sky is far too bright. Any tips?
For the exposure problems, that's why there are GND (graduated neutral density) filters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graduated_neutral_density_filter
Comment by Rowmac posted on Wide Angle or Fish Eyes? at 18/08/2010 - 14:34
simonkit wrote:
Also with landscapes the chances are that you will be using apertures around F11/F16 to emphasise depth, at these apertures the IQ difference between primes and zooms is not quite so significant as it is when using larger apertures (F2.8 etc) so the added flexibility of a zoom may well be more beneficial.
Simon
Pardon my lack of knowledge but IQ?Also with landscapes the chances are that you will be using apertures around F11/F16 to emphasise depth, at these apertures the IQ difference between primes and zooms is not quite so significant as it is when using larger apertures (F2.8 etc) so the added flexibility of a zoom may well be more beneficial.
Simon
Had a brief look at some of your landscape photos and they look very good. If I may ask, how did you balance exposure between land and sky? Every time I make an attempt at landscapes, my K-x either adjusts according to the sky and land comes out underexposed or it picks land and the sky is far too bright. Any tips?
Comment by Rowmac posted on Wide Angle or Fish Eyes? at 18/08/2010 - 13:42
As much fun as a fisheye/very wide angle lens would be, from reading comments about their versatility and the various issues to get them to produce good results; Costwise, I think might be better off sticking with my 18-55 and consider a 28mm f2.8 or wider £50'ish lens that Dangermouse talked about a little earlier in this thread. A compromise, I know, but I don't have the moola to fork out for a £400 ultra wide angle >.
Comment by Rowmac posted on Wide Angle or Fish Eyes? at 18/08/2010 - 10:27
Thanks Davex!
Comment by Rowmac posted on Wide Angle or Fish Eyes? at 17/08/2010 - 18:24
Rowmac wrote:
@Dangermouse: I'm sold! Cheers for the help
Edit: This 50mm will work with a K-x, right?
28mm, not a 50, sorry. Been doing a lot of research on lenses.@Dangermouse: I'm sold! Cheers for the help
Edit: This 50mm will work with a K-x, right?
Comment by Rowmac posted on Wide Angle or Fish Eyes? at 17/08/2010 - 17:48
@Dangermouse: I'm sold! Cheers for the help
Edit: This 50mm will work with a K-x, right?
Edit: This 50mm will work with a K-x, right?
Comment by Rowmac posted on Wide Angle or Fish Eyes? at 17/08/2010 - 16:51
Adqam wrote:
>Ideally, I'd like to get a wide angle lense for landscapes et al.
If someone can recommend one (hopefully not too expensive) I'd be very grateful.
Define expensive! Wide angle lenses are typically not cheap. One of the better lenses for Pentax is the 12-24, which you can find badged as Samsung for around £400.
I've got the 18-55 kit lens at the moment. Would dropping down that extra 6mm really make the difference? £400 is a lot of money for me at the moment so I think I shall hold off for a while! Thanks for the help though. >Ideally, I'd like to get a wide angle lense for landscapes et al.
If someone can recommend one (hopefully not too expensive) I'd be very grateful.
Define expensive! Wide angle lenses are typically not cheap. One of the better lenses for Pentax is the 12-24, which you can find badged as Samsung for around £400.
Comment by Rowmac posted on Wide Angle or Fish Eyes? at 17/08/2010 - 14:50
