phil r calgary ab canada

<p>Maybe I'm old school and don't shoot much in studio, but when I was weighing between the 70mm & the 77mm, I loved the solid feel, the gorgeous build and tack sharpness of the 77mm enough to not worry about the extra weight.<br>

I also shoot with the 16-50mm as my main lens so I know what you mean about the sharpness, both of them are very good, but there's that extra length that allows you to be a bit further back from your subject to give them some room to breathe and still get really amazing close-up details.<br>

It seems like the silk smooth bokeh at the shallow end is more for outdoors photos so it's really up to you. Personally I love the range because I used to shoot a lot with an 135mm back in film days and it's in the perfect range of 115mm so being low-profile (compared to giant zooms) but enough to hold onto.<br>

I guess in a long way of saying, on pure technical aspects, both are razor sharp, but perhaps on shooting styles, the 77mm is meant for a different purpose. For me it was worth the money for such a beautiful classy act of a lens, but it might be different for you. Enjoy either way. Hope this helps.<br>

Gooday </p>

<p>I know that this is a Nikon forum and haven't shot any of their stuff so don't have much comparison. However, I agree as I was shooting out in the snow for two hours the other day (minus ducking into a coffee shop to warm up) and had no fears as snow melted on the camera in the coffee shop and afterwards.<br>

Washed it under the tap on occasion; ie after being at a dusty rodeo.<br>

I've shot photos for hours in a swack of rainstorms too -- both prairie and west coast -- with no trouble. Just another reason I love my K10. I was worried before I could afford a DA* lens, so I used my old manual 50mm f1.4 and still had no problems, even without a full seal.<br>

Yay Pentax.</p>

'nother one<div></div>

for a photo essay. some good ol'hockey canadiana mythology of the zamboni rinkrat who rocks. shot with a Pentax K100d and converted to grayscale coz i can't afford a M6 or M8 yet

 

gorgeous photos in this thread<div></div>

a tad longer lens like a 70mm or 100mm helps to give someone more personal space. low lighting helps in most nude photography for some reason from my experience. more than usual, remember to let them ask them if they'd like to take a break and turn off any photoflood lights.

 

i've yet to do a pregency shoot though. however, a wedding photographer i learned from had a really good repore with clients so they felt more willing trusting to bare a tummy for her

 

if you ain't a girl, bring one along to do hair/make-up, somehow makes it a more comfortable situation. if it makes them more comfy, bring along the husband (or not) or girl friend who sets them at ease. basics are to make it fun just like any other portrait shoot, if a person relaxes they lok more natural on film

 

good luck

wondering how it'll compare to the other big name fast glass in price & sharpness. are there any reviews on it yet? light is good, but just as solid? sounds good though

takes amazing sky photos and little distortion on buildings. dope for street scenes and pretty light weight too, bit expensive, but worth every penny

how often do you need a 400mm on the street? perhaps out in the bush running after lions and tigers and bears oh my. the sigma has pentax mount if you need 300mm until they come out with something longer than the pentax star lens with max range of 250mm. most reports i've read have been negative towards the softness of 300mm+ ranges -- pricer primes excluded of course

 

if anything the question should be, what are does someone need to shoot that is so far away?

 

cheers

not to bash, but why go on about canon lenses, elite prices... can't afford it and pj-school too

 

i love my 14mm/f2.8 and can't wait to get the 77mm limited and the fast telephoto glass. so glad them pentax engineers choose to go backwards compatibility, why fix something that ain't broke? awesome to hear that there will be more limited lenses at popping up to 30mm, 55mm and 110mm after the 1.5x factor. that's some sweet spots on a zoom lens anyway, hope they don't cost an arm and a leg. are they f1.8 too?

 

looked at nikon for backwards compatiability as needing an "industry standard" camera for school, what's wrong with the k10d and sweet star lenses? fairly water resistant ta'boot. canons that are reasonable price aren't as reasonable quality; the k100d smacks the rebel XTs down in my opinion, it's no rebel. the d200 cost more than my k100d, two lens kit & 14mm

 

the d30 was sweet but too expensive. finally felt a "rebel" with some weight, it had a big battery pack stuck to it. my k100d weighs in so solid and balanced without the bulk. put my 50mm/f1.7 on it and i'm set. the guy with the rebel didn't say anything as he's looking the elegent little 50mm...

 

canon guy, is something as sweet as the pentax 40mm pancake lens around? i'm not sure, but probably costs a pretty penny. putting that 40mm on at the store was like holding a range finder again.

 

cheers to pentax

 

good hunting

holy thank you so much. the ok button works so nicely. now i understand the quick shift -- very neat function! and the site link had some really great pointers too. getting tired of it searching was a mild way of putting it and now i got way more confidence in autofocus. cheers to you

 

gooday

 

phil

 

ps any pearls of wisdom for cold batteries? ;)

F90 is a good portrait photog's camera of what i understood from talked to a guy once. get a decent body and invest in sweet lenses that you could if you ever decide to look at a nikon D-SLR -- lucky for you and me (pentax k100d user) manual film glass is cheap because of digital revolution as nikon d-slrs accept a lot of AF film lenses too. d70xi is a nice machine to be sure.... is there any reason you wouldn't consider digital? besides shooting black and white film; still the best!

 

my buddy raves about his F3 so i'll give that one as a more expensive but definately amazing body to save for if you going with the nikon line

 

don't depend on run of mill lenses for long, though it's a good idea to get F100 and you'll see sharp enough photos with a 50/f1.7 or 105/f2 (beautiful portrait lens to look out for) though a 135mm/f.2 isn't a bad idea as it's more common. just something to consider later for mild telephoto.

 

camera lenses from the 80s were made solid before they started to really use space age junk. don't get me wrong, i love light lenses, but it's more expensive to get a solid bodied lens now. just my personal opinion.

 

for cold climate, just make sure you keep the camera in your jacket and keep your lenses well lubricated from the repair shop. down at -30C you'll have film break but other then that, noworries

 

other then that, have a ton of fun and always carry a few extra rolls

 

gooday

 

phil

<div></div>

hi

 

got a bunch of DA lenses a month ago and i love them. 14mm, 18-55 & 50-200mm

beauty with my K100d. sooooooooo much fun

 

my old 50mm, 135mm and 70-210 work awesomely too (my photojournalism teacher

called me a maverick for already having too many lenses for first year sheesh)

once i figured out from a forum post that you had to hit the AE lock button in

manual mode to get a metering on non AE lenses -- a function ALSO very scantily

covered in the manual

 

but they are heralded as having the quick-shift focus system.... that's nice

except it doesn't say very clearly at all how to actually use the darn function.

 

is the lens' magical automatic quickshift system know when i want to switch to

manual focus so i can shoot action or sit with it on a tripod? which is what i'd

assume the system was meant for.

 

is it somewhere in the manual that i missed or is there a secret pentax guild

trick to this. now if the pentax guild could just explain how to make my NiCd

batteries resistant to the -10degree celcius cold, that'd be awesome too. thanks

for any help on the quickshift system

 

cheers

 

phil

yana mentioned it and i'll elabourate a bit.... most try to do the i'm not showing any teeth and looking all coy and seductive. it ends up looking grumpy in my opinion. if you get her to relax, she'll do her thing... look beautiful if you make her feel glamourous. she'll try more creative stuff. let her personality (tramp, princess, dancer, whatever) come through and you'll get some more raw emotions photos

 

i'm no pro, i've just do it for artsy fun for the last 5 years. so i don't know exactly how the masters do it, i just know they use their intuition and work really quickly and quietly, observing the personality and movements of the model.

 

studying the pros enough to know that every shot is purposely composed in every little detail from her dress falling a certain way to the angle of her wrist. study them up and look at everything from Elle, Vogue, Harper's Bazaar high fashion) to Victoria Secret, Sports Illustrated, and Playboy (who have some of the world's best photogs on staff). or look at gothy/punk (ripped up clothes, dark makeup), extreme sports (muddy, attitude) and racecar models (pure hotness)

 

the point of flipping through the fashion mags is to find pose you like and copying them to some degree. Right now, i'm totally into Marilyn Manroe's poses. now there was an undeniably sexy model and her moves worked well in my past few shoots. a gal don't need to look sexy persay, only graceful and beautiful to the extreme.

 

and you don't like any of the poses you find in the magazines, forge ahead and make it up as you go. find some dramatic locations to inspire you -- industrial, beaches under cliffs, iron wrought gates to parks etc. -- and work her into the landscape. take lots of water and a four foot reflector to erase shadows under eyes.

 

strobe lights are sweet but.... expensive and a pain, try some hot photoflood lights first to learn how rim, side, fill, main, and hair lights work together. studio's all about putting on a good show of what you do or don't want to show.

 

a cheap clip-on lamp or pair of trouble flood lights seriously work just as well as expensive gear until you want to invest in something that will pump up 250-500 watts. especially low light contrasty shadows -- that'll give you some drama for your edgy shots. it's all clothes and lighting. if you got clients' clothing, bonus.

 

assure her not to worry about the client, he trusts you, so should she. plus the clothes make her look sexier then you thought it was possible or some lame joke like that and she might totally lighten up. that or take her glass pipe away... :P

 

good luck

i'm sure there's lots in the photo.net archive on posing as large group portraits are the most challenging and fun stuff to do. i even remember writing an answer and i'm sure others have done much better on it. look in the wedding photography section, they are aces at group shots.

 

definately use the oak tree. especially if there's a bunch of big root-base exposed or some places for heads to peek around /through. just mindful of weird branch shadows. i've even had people climbing into the trees for portraits, but i'm more adventureous to balance precariously.

 

my rule of thumb is if you can't see me, i can't see you. SO stop hiding behind someone else. this is an reminder for shy people that yes you do want them showing up in the photo.

 

avoid the flash if you can, it annoys people after a lot of shots in my humble opinion -- your lens is fast enough. the 35-50mmm range should be good for including everyone and not distorting at all.

 

only other major thing is to position the adults in logical family/relationship groupings first, then with elderly, who you place next if getting them seated isn't possible. lastly, the lil'uns (especially the 3yr old) as they're going to get bored and move around if you arranged them first.

 

other than that, MOVE FAST:-) keep it fun, if they are laughing, they're relaxed and might try some more imaginative stuff. remember to take a few with a self-timer or remote trigger. as i said before, there's likely lots on the archive i'm sure.

 

good luck

that wasn't an absolutely perfect s-curve, but hey, i'm still learning and have a lot of fun doing it

what you need a book for? art history paintings, fashion magazines and commercial photography are pretty solid studies of the human form

 

go "innocently" check out technique from sears photo studios, though i admit i worked there for three months of hell and mighty fine experience

 

a lot of it is just cropping and neat backdrops to speed up the process:

 

full length, mug, 3/4, bust, extreme close-up, sitting/laying down

 

 

next, go people watching or to the live theatre: can't see how people move and act in a book

 

guys: macho/rugged/in charge

 

ladies: feminine/graceful/sexy

 

teens: cool/tough/dramatic

 

children: they don't stand still, tire them out for mom's lap or let them play

 

elderly: see above and get them to feel young

 

 

thirdly, go look at decent wedding and amazing classic galleries

 

http://masters-of-photography.com/

 

wedding photographers are everywhere, look for a local one

 

 

i'm not say outright copycat, just take poses you think look really neat and modify them to make your own. there aren't many left that the classic painters and sculptures haven't already thought up. di vinci, rembrandt, caravaggio and karsh were my heroes and teachers through their works.

 

http://www.abcgallery.com/

 

finally, every single book, if it's good, will likely tell you PRACTICE! make mistakes and keep shooting. happy hunting.

 

gooday

 

phil

 

ps sorri can't remember how to make bullet form lists<div></div>

I really appreciate all the suggestions and reassurences that it will be a smoother transition to a digital camera then I expected. The K100D is listed at vistek.ca at $1000 CAN bundled with the 18-55mm and 50-200mm. $750 for body only or $850 with the 18-55mm -- not bad at all for a kit.

 

only a week or so until the camera comes into the shops!

 

cheers

Hi

 

Don't know if this has been discussed to death yet, (some links if applicable

would be nice) but was pondering what the restrictions for k-mount SMC-A lenses

would be with a *ist-ds. Wondering more in regards to the anticipated k-100d.

Every reviewer goes wow you can use your old lenses, but never goes into how

well they actually perform. Is the 1.5x magnification at the cost of auto-focus

truly that good a trade-off when working towards being a professional? do you

lose f-stops?

 

My 28mm/f2.8, 50mm/f1.2, 135mm/f2.8 and 70-210mm/f4 macro-zoom would obviously

have no auto assist for Tv, AE and autofocus functions. Having never had a DSLR,

would I lament the absence after using a k-1000? Aside from having to manually

slide an aperature ring a few clicks and waste three precious seconds *mock

gasp* would there be any hidden disadvantages? Time would tell, but I'm student

and that's a lot of coin to find out the hard way. I'll borrow my friend's

*ist-D to see how the glass balances, but it's hard to figure out if the k-100D

or ist*DS would work in the long run.

 

Are those beautiful now vintage lenses still as sweet on a digital SLR?

Especially when I'm hoping to use them in photojournalism school. I'd still

likely get the 16-45mm and 50-200mm FA digital lenses, (scrap the kit 18-55mm

and drop much coin?) yet to have a few of my old primes convert to near perfect

42mm, 75mm, 200mm and 105-315mm lengths as well, bonus! or is it? Granted, as I

wouldn't have a pair of k-1000s to save lens switching, few would be caught

carrying six solid lenses -- three could easily work though. I don't want to get

a comparitively chunky D70s and new set of glass unless necessity dictates.

Thanks for any help and advice. Viva la pentax revolution.

 

Gooday

it sounds simple but white blankets reflect a lot of light. a bit of light from a house light (take the shade off it) to compliment the good suggestion of using daylight balanced film or digital light reading. increasing the exposure value (EV) setting on your digital camera and use a tripod to take longer time exposures. if asleep (which is a lot of the time :) they won't move and blur the photo much. for a simple flash diffusor, scotch tape up a few layers across the front of the flash

 

besides focusing and composing really quick if they are actually awake and cheerful, a tip for wee ones' portraits, tickle their cheek with something really soft just before you take the photo and you might actually get a half-grin of a good dreamy look on the face. have fun and congrads.

you might want to check out photoflood lights. they are a bit smaller on the wattage but i think you can get a pair as a starter kit that have 250-500 each and have a stand that extends 7 feet high for under a hundred dollars. folds up and fits in a small duffle bag. the pair i have work awesome for simple family or model photos.

 

they're more for reflected and direct lights but 12" of aluminum bowl shaped reflectors can nicely create enough high contrast. i also use a $5 reading light with a clip for a 75watt hair light. there's lots of alternatives to keep down cost.

 

barn-door and grid sunpack varities are more expensive, but so much more controlled for shadows. since you seem to like experimenting, check out a few designs and see if you can replicate the flaps on a home depot style 250 watt halogen light and attach them to basic stands.

 

last thing i can think of try difussor material if you haven't already for a soft box that they use for lighting movie sets. it's like guaze but pretty heat resistant. good luck and stay fire-free ;-)

it wasn't my best composition or anything, as i was a little sleepy but is proof that nobody sued me (that i know of yet : ) and i didn't have anyone scream at me to rip the film out of the camera<div></div>

if you don't want your photo taken, it's a free country... i liked what the person beside them was wearing but i cropped in the photo to this wonderful example of avoiding the photographer and a long legal battle. it's a little blurry because i took it on the fly in HCB's style.<div></div>

fight for your rights for sure! that is horrifying for any photographer and i commend that guy for hopefully winning and setting a standard of how people cannot sue photographers. i do find the amusement in this privacy-loving "private" citizen who would sue the sun for giving him risk of skin cancer. his lawyer openly admitted the photos are beautiful. then why is he defending the guy? the photo wasn't in bad taste.

 

another era indeed -- before people got paranoid that big brother is watching. i'd as soon as deal with aborigial tribes who think i'm stealing souls... rather then people who sue for hot coffee spilling on their lap and try to say they weren't warned.

 

it brings up a very good point... why shouldn't we profit from our photographs? do people not realize this is a professional trade? it'd be grand if i could always repay in photographs as an artistic gift to those who lend me their time. but to me, street photography purely is a means of expression for reflecting social culture. unfortunately despite artistic merit, that does not pay for my equipment

 

i know this is a slightly different angle to the topic but where is the line of which to divide commercial stock photography from street art? isn't a model release so that we (the photographers) can publish (and supposedly make rent money) cartier-bresson didn't ask for model releases coz that might just ruin the defining moment. life gives no warning, why should a photographer?

street performers are exactly that, performers. if you drop a few dollar bills in their instrument case, they don't often have a problem, tourists do it all the time. but then again what are you using the photos for?

 

in response to the above response

 

i don't know about resturants unless you are creating discomfort amongst privacy loving suspicious fellow customers. but streetstyle shouldn't be a problem. i've been bs'd that i needed a release form to do a photoshoot for a resturant's website update so i wouldn't sell the photos to another interior designer or the resturant's competition.

 

and NO in stores!!! i've been point-blank told to put my camera away in a few stores without written permission of the owner and even when i tried to very nicely asked to borrow consignment clothes for an art modelling shoot.

 

this summer, i was goofing around with a friend in a supermarket with a little point and shoot digital camera and the floor manager came and grumped at us (as we were leaving with $50 worth of groceries) but we could have been secret shoppers or again competition's spies... gads.... all we did was take a few naughty photos with mellons and sausages. but still... his explination outraged a woman who overheard us and had seen us having fun and she told us how rude he was. i agreed but shurgged shoulders. i don't usually shop there anyways.

 

i don't advocate the last incident as it was damaging to the next photographer or other innocent teen who pulls out a camera in that grocery. but it was an odd explination to keep us from taking photos. i don't have a clue what he would have done if i had been taking customers' photos street photo style if he was that suspious already.

 

the only other situation that is mafia related is from the Godfather series where the wedding photographer gets his camera smashed. i'm sorry but i think that scene is bizarre as it is funny. avoid al capone characters and you should be fine.